Discrepancies in purposes of student course evaluations: what does it mean to be “satisfied”?

Abstract

Student evaluation of teaching is a multipurpose tool that aims to improve and assure educational quality. Improved teaching and student learning are central to educational enhancement. However, use of evaluation data for these purposes is less robust than expected. This paper explores how students and teachers perceive how different student evaluation methods at a Norwegian university invite students to provide feedback about aspects relevant to their learning processes. We discuss whether there are characteristics of the methods themselves that might affect the use of student evaluation. For the purpose of this study, interviews with teachers and students were conducted, and educational documents were analysed. Results indicated that evaluation questions in surveys emerged as mostly teaching-oriented, non-specific and satisfaction-based. This type of question did not request feedback from students about aspects that they considered relevant to their learning processes. Teachers noted limitations with surveys and said such questions were unsuitable for educational enhancement. In contrast, dialogue-based evaluation methods engaged students in discussions about their learning processes and increased students' and teachers' awareness about how aspects of courses improved and hindered students' learning processes. Students regarded these dialogues as valuable for their learning processes and development of communication skills. The students expected all evaluations to be learning oriented and were surprised by the teaching focus in surveys. This discrepancy caused a gap between students' expectations and the evaluation practice. Dialogue-based evaluation methods stand out as a promising alternative or supplement to a written student evaluation approach when focusing on students' learning processes.

Faculty Feedback Program Evaluation in CIMS Multan, Pakistan

“…Medical institutes must sustain a high education standard as their graduates carry great responsibilities for which purpose evaluations are carried out to equate control with accountability and quality enhancement [16][17][18][19][20]. Institutes use systems to provide feedback to their teachers in order to improve their performance and frequent written feedback is one way to increase teacher evaluation scores, but despite an overall encouraging attitude towards evaluations, it has been observed that use of evaluation data for teaching improvement is less [8,21]. Evidence suggests that student satisfaction is closely related to tangible action taken after they provide teacher feedback [22].…”

“…Little research exists on qualitative evaluation methods compared to quantitative ones [26]. But in a study published in January 2020, it was observed that open-ended questions providing space for explanation of low teachers ratings were considered important by students specially in questionnaires having non-specific questions [21]. We had modified the 2018 feedback questionnaire to target specific qualities, e.g., time management, command on subject, outlining learning outcomes, conduction of interactive sessions in a safe learning environment, use of real-life experiences, multiple teaching aids and innovative teaching methods, etc.…”

“…It additionally addressed teacher's communication/mentoring skills and accommodated open comments by students. However, even after revision/modification of the questionnaire, our focus remained teacher oriented while a learning-oriented approach is recommended in the future [21].…”

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

“…However, during the 1970s in the USA, its use started to expand to human resources decisions concerning faculty personnel. Then, at the beginning of the new millennium, in the course of increased international cooperation and competition, a process of legalising quality for higher education institutions started, which created a need for practices of accountability (Borch et al 2020;Donzallaz 2010;Skedsmo 2020;Spooren et al 2017).…”

“…To date the often simultaneous use of the method for different purposes has been critically discussed by practitioners and researchers alike, and various alternative or supplementary approaches have been tested, suggested, and implemented to address different stakeholders' need for different information (e.g. Borch et al 2020;Skedsmo 2020;Spooren et al 2017). However, as the institutional accreditation of higher education institutions will continue to be a vital requirement and, as mentioned above, this survey method produces comparable results with relative ease, higher education institutions will likely continue to rely on this method.…”