Class size and teaching evaluation: Or, the "general chemistry effect" revisited

Toby, Sidney

doi:10.1021/ed070p465

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some research suggests that large classes are simply not as effective as small classes for retention of knowledge, critical thinking, and attitude change (McKeachie, 1978, p. 207; Siegfried and Fels, 1979, pp. 938‐9; Glass et al , 1981; Toby, 1993; Cranton and Smith, 1986; Koh and Tan, 1997). However, some studies found a negative relationship between teaching evaluation and class size (Marquardt et al , 1975), while other studies found a weak or insignificant relationship (Stumpf and Freedman, 1979; Marsh, 1984, 1987; Langbein, 1994).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several past studies found that SET offers a reliable and valid assessment of teachers (e.g. American Accounting Association, 1988; Cranton and Smith, 1990; Holtfreter, 1991; Hooper and Page, 1986; Toby, 1993). In fact, SET is one of the most commonly used teaching evaluation methods in universities worldwide (Newton, 1988; Seldin, 1989; Stratton, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identifying potential biasing variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE

Badri

Abdulla

Kamali

et al. 2006

Intl Jnl of Educational Mgt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of many factors on student evaluation of teaching.Design/methodology/approachThe study analyzed 3,185 student evaluations of faculty from a newly accredited business program at the United Arab Emirates University using univariate and multi‐analysis of variance (ANOVA and MANOVA).FindingsThe findings support previous research regarding the existence of potential biasing factors. The results indicate that expected grade, actual grade, course level, class size, course timing, student gender and course subject significantly affect student evaluation of teaching.Originality/valueComparing individual faculty ratings regardless of other factors might not be fair. Our findings support the call of other researchers that ignoring these other factors may bias or make questionable the validity of student evaluation of teaching as a means of performance appraisal of faculty. Because of the possible existence of biasing factors in SET, there is a need to supplement it with other measures of teaching effectiveness

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying potential biasing variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE

Badri

Abdulla

Kamali

et al. 2006

Intl Jnl of Educational Mgt

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To many students, science is perceived as boring, irrelevant, and difficult to learn. University‐level general chemistry courses are not immune to this national epidemic, and a trend of both low student performance and interest have been observed and documented in these introductory courses (Barrow, 1994; Holme, 1991; Toby, 1993).…”

Section: Background On Curriculum Reformmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aligning General Chemistry Laboratory With Lecture at a Large University

DiBiase¹,

Wagner²

2002

School Sci & Mathematics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The laboratory and lecture components of general chemistry are commonly offered as two separate courses, with lecture typically meeting two or three times per week and laboratory scheduled to meet only once per week. The concepts, content, and relationships presented in lecture may be disjointed and asynchronous with respect to those encountered in laboratory experiments. In addition, traditional laboratory experiments tend to be confirmation labs, in which students are aware of the “right” answer before beginning the lab. Students enrolled in a specific lecture section do not necessarily meet for the same laboratory section. As such, learning experiences in laboratory do little to help the students construct an understanding of chemical concepts, content, or relationships. The goal of this project was to develop an inquiry‐based approach to curriculum and instruction in first‐semester general chemistry at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. A major objective of the project was to develop a laboratory curriculum that meshes intimately with lecture. This objective was accomplished by (a) creating a laboratory course that met for 80‐minutes twice a week immediately following the lecture, (b) involving students in laboratory experiments that related to the material presented during lecture, and (c) using laboratory observations and data in lecture to help students construct an understanding of chemical phenomena.

show abstract

“…Although teaching evaluation is very important, it is not without problems. The fundamental one is probably the ambiguity of defining an effective teacher (Toby, 1993). This problem has been well discussed in the literature and while different views exist, the consensus seems to be that an effective teacher is one who: is committed to students and their learning; knows the subject matter and how to teach the subject; and is responsible for managing and monitoring student learning (Clark, 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several past studies found that student evaluation of teaching (SET) offers a reliable and valid assessment of teachers (e.g. American Accounting Association, 1988;Cranton and Smith, 1990;Holtfreter, 1991;Hooper and Page, 1986;Toby, 1993). In fact, SET is one of the most commonly used teaching evaluation methods in universities worldwide (Newton, 1988;Seldin, 1989;Stratton, 1990).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical investigation of the factors affecting SET results

Koh

Tan

1997

International Journal of Educational Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigates the factors affecting student evaluation of teaching (SET). A total of 170 teaching evaluations conducted at the Nanyang Business School (Singapore) were analysed by regressing the overall teaching index on the following variables: subject characteristics (stream, year and type), class characteristics (format, size, time and day), evaluation characteristics (response, time and day), and teacher characteristics (age, gender and rank). Indicates that better teaching evaluation is associated with a smaller class size and a larger number of evaluation responses. Also, teachers of middle-level subjects receive relatively poorer SET results. Further, SET administered in the later part of the week attract better student evaluation. Finds that teacher characteristics have no significant impact on SET results. Confirms the existence of potential biasing factors, hence, SET should be used with caution and not be the only method of evaluating teachers.

show abstract

Class size and teaching evaluation: Or, the "general chemistry effect" revisited

Cited by 14 publications

References 4 publications

Identifying potential biasing variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE

Identifying potential biasing variables in student evaluation of teaching in a newly accredited business program in the UAE

Aligning General Chemistry Laboratory With Lecture at a Large University

Empirical investigation of the factors affecting SET results

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About