Dimensions of student evaluations of teaching.

Isaacson, Robert L.; McKeachie, Wilbert J.; Milholland, John E.; Yi, Lin; Hofeller, Margaret A.; Zinn, Karl L.

doi:10.1037/h0042551

Cited by 134 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of the student rating forms generated were validated by using this approach (Costin et al, 1971). Statistical tools like factor analysis have also been used to verify subjectively determined dimensions of the instructional setting and process (Bendig, 1954;Deshpande et al, 1970;Doyle and Whitely, 1974;Hildebrand et al, 1971;Isaacson et al, 1964). Both statistical (factor analysis) and subjective expert judgments were used in generating the items and subscales that make up the CEQ and CIEQ forms (Aleamoni, 1978).…”

Section: Validity Of Student Ratings and Rating Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation

Aleamoni

Hexner

1980

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An extensive review of the research concerning the effect of different variables on student ratings is presented. A study is then reported comparing the effects of different sets of instructions on student evaluations of the course and instructor. The results indicated that the students who were informed that the results of their ratings would be used for administrative decisions rated the course and instructor more favorably on all aspects than students who were informed that the results of their ratings would only be used by the instructor.In the mad rush to make courses "relevant" and meet new demands of accountability, colleges and universities have proposed many methods of evaluating the effectiveness of instruction. Such proposals generally indicate that many elements of the instructional setting need to be evaluated by several different audiences. Unfortunately, most proposals that are operationalized rest solely on the use of student ratings of instructors and informal colleague opinions. That students are able to provide reliable and valid evaluations of instructional quality has come to be recognized (Aleamoni, 1978;Costin et al., 1971).Much of the research on student rating of instructors has been concerned with the effect of different variables on these ratings. Due in part to the use of different course evaluation forms and to the use of differing research methodologies, the results of these investigations are often discrepant.Some of the variables which have been investigated include (a) reliability and validity of student ratings, (b) reliability and validity of student rating instruments, (c) class size, (d) sex of the student and sex of the instructor, (e)

show abstract

Section: Validity Of Student Ratings and Rating Instrumentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation

Aleamoni

Hexner

1980

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a significant amount of research demonstrating that students evaluate classroom practices differently than professional observers (Centra, 1993;Isaacson et al, 1964;Simpson & Siguaw, 2000;Sojka, Gupta, & Deeter-Schmelz, 2002). We believe our findings suggest that student self-reported data are a valid alternative for rating the level of engagement and student-centeredness of a course but do not argue for equivalence beyond the measured domains (Schunk & Meece, 1992).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 63%

Development of a Student Self-Reported Instrument to Assess Course Reform

Morris

Parker

Nelson

et al. 2014

Educational Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the development and implementation of a survey-based instrument assessing the effectiveness of a course redesign initiative focused on student centeredness at a large midwestern university in the United States. Given the scope of the reform initiative under investigation in this study, researchers developed an instrument called the Classroom Experience Questionnaire (CEQ), which was administered to students enrolled in redesigned courses. Early findings demonstrate strong construct validity and internal reliability of the CEQ instrument as well as concurrent validity between the CEQ and observation data gathered in concert with self-report data. The authors conclude that in the absence of trained classroom observers, the developed student selfreport protocol can serve as a useful tool for measuring the constructivist orientation of pedagogy and student-centered nature of the learning environment in a higher education setting.

show abstract

“…Instructor behavior was measured by the revised McKeachie-'Lin Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) fully described by Isaacson et al, (1963), Isaacson et al (1964), and by Pambookian (1974).…”

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In forming the three types of instructors, only the discrepancy scores on the evaluative items of skill and rapport were taken into consideration, as research (Isaacson et al, 1964;McKeachie et al, 1971) has shown these dimensions gave evidence of effective teaching. The types were (a) the unfavorably discrepant instructors (UD; instructor rating better than students, N=2), (b) the minimally discrepant instructors (MD; instructor rating as good as students, N=2), and (c) the favorably discrepant instructors (FD; student ratings better than instructor, N=9).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancy between instructor and student evaluations of instruction: Effect on instructor

Pambookian

1976

Instr Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To find out whether a discrepancy between the instructor's and the student's evaluations of teaching influence teaching, 13 introductory and educational psychology instructors and their students were given a Student Opinion Questionnaire (SOQ) twice: on the fourth week of a fall term and eight weeks after feedback sessions with the instructors. The instructors received feedback on the direction and amount of initial discrepancy. The results showed that the unfavorable discrepant instructors (instructor rating better than students) changed more on skill, feedback, rapport, general teaching ability, and the overall value of the course than the favorably discrepant instructors (student ratings better than instructor). The unfavorably discrepant instructors improved their teaching significantly more than the favorably discrepant instructors.The feedback of student evaluations of teaching to teachers brought some improvements in teaching at the elementary and high school levels (Bryan, 1963;Gage et al., 1963;Tuckman and Oliver, 1968). The results, however, were less encouraging at the college level. In studies by Centra (1972b), Miller (1971), and Pambookian (1972, instructors who received feedback did not significantly improve their teaching when compared to those who had no access to such information. Interestingly, nevertheless, Pambookian (1974) found that the initial level of student evaluations of instruction had a strong influence on instructors. In his study, the moderately rated instructors developed more positive changes in the teaching dimensions of skill, interaction and rapport, after the feedback, than did the 1 This article is based on portions of a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph. D. degree at the University of Michigan. The author wishes to acknowledge the help given by Wilbert J. McKeachie and Alvin F. Zander and thank them for their suggestions.

show abstract

Dimensions of student evaluations of teaching.

Cited by 134 publications

References 6 publications

A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation

A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation

Development of a Student Self-Reported Instrument to Assess Course Reform

Discrepancy between instructor and student evaluations of instruction: Effect on instructor

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About