Adverse Changes In Faculty Behavior Resulting From Use Of Student Evaluations Of Teaching: A Case Study

Abstract

Based on a detailed literature review and longitudinal analysis, this paper explores the possible underlying causes of the decline in the number of hours per week graduating business seniors indicated they studied during their senior year. The study was conducted at an AACSB accredited college of business at a regional university. The study indicates that the decline in hours studied was likely an unintended result of using a process designed to demonstrate continuous improvement in teaching. The process utilized the Educational Testing Service’s SIR II student evaluation instrument as the only measure of teaching quality/effectiveness. The study concludes that the process may have pressured some instructors to sacrifice teaching rigor in an attempt to obtain more favorable student evaluations, thereby precipitating the decline in hours studied.

Student Evaluation of Teaching

“…Moreover, interest in evaluations has included issues of validity and reliability (Donovan, Mader, & Shinsky, 2007; Pritchard & Potter, 2011) and concerns about the “leniency hypothesis,” which postulates that better evaluations result if expectations of student performance are lowered. Unethical faculty behavior to favorably influence these ratings may result in “a destruction of educational objectives” (Pritchard & Potter, 2011, p. 2).…”

Are Teacher Course Evaluations Biased Against Faculty That Teach Quantitative Methods Courses?

“…It is realized that there are other potential factors affecting student ratings (e.g., class size, grading leniency, level of course, etc.) (Brockx, Spooren, & Mortelmans, 2011;Pritchard, & Potter, 2011). For example, Haladyna and Hess (1994) explored and confirmed bias among student ratings using the many-faceted Rasch Model (Linacre, 1987), specifically looking into five facets of rating bias, those being the faculty member, the survey items themselves, rater bias (student), gender of the rater, rater perception of course type, and whether the course was a required course or an elective course.…”

Utilising the Virtual Learning Environment to Encourage Faculty Reflection and Improve the Student Learning Experience

“…• Grading leniency bias (higher ratings when higher grades are expected, and therefore vice versa); _ Adapting unit1 difficulty (e.g., reducing the amount of homework or dumbing materials down to keep students happy, or even reducing or eliminating the fail rate of students); • Decreasing the likelihood that teachers discuss controversial ideas or challenging questions because of the fear that students will decrease their scores on the SET, thus the SET becomes a threat to academic freedom (Braskamp & Ory, 1994, cited in Parayitam et al, 2007; • Decreasing the chances that the teacher be willing to challenge the student, thus actually decreasing the learning in the classroom (Pritchard & Potter, 2011); • Other factors over which the faculty member has little control may influence the SET score, such as cosmetic factors (such as faculty member's gender, race, sense of humour, and/or physical appearance); • Whether the unit is a required unit or an elective, student effort and student interest in the unit (McPherson, 2006;Onwuegbuzie et al, 2007;Parayitam et al, 2007;Scriven, 1995;Weinberg, Hashimoto & Fleisher, 2009).…”