Untitled

Young, I. Phillip; Delli, Dane A.; Johnson, LeRoy

doi:10.1023/a:1008124606262

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…3, No. 5; should be focused and based on student learning as an important indicator of effective and good teaching (Abrami, D'Apollonia, & Rosenfiled, 1997;Ellett & Teddlie, 2003;Hativa, 2000;Mckeachie, 1997;Ramsden, 1992Ramsden, , 2003Seldin, 1998, 1999, cited in Al Hinai, 2011. Additionally, Arreola (2007) argues that a complete definition of good college teaching should include three main dimensions: content expertise, instructional delivery skills and characteristics, and instructional design skills.…”

Section: Effective Teaching Fallacymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers believe that "student ratings are the most valid source of evaluating teaching effectiveness, and there is little support for the validity of any other source" (Zhao & Gallant, 2012, p. 227). Aleamoni supports the use of student ratings for five reasons: 1) student ratings can provide information about the accomplishment of major educational objectives; 2) they can provide information about the rapport between the students and their teacher; 3) they can provide information about the elements of a classroom, such as quality of instructional materials, homework, and instructional methods; 4) they can provide information about the kind of communication that exists between students and the instructor; and 5) they can also provide consumer data and the freedom for students to choose their instructors (1999, cited in Zhao & Gallant, 2012. Furthermore, Machina (1987) acknowledged the importance of student ratings in the teaching-learning process, as well as the way in which student evaluations can honestly report student perceptions about the course and quality of instruction.…”

Section: Importance Of Student Evaluations Of Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, Centra (1993) argues that student learning at the tertiary level is a complex activity and can be affected by several factors besides teaching effectiveness, such as student learning styles, level of motivation, aptitudes, student effort, and preferences for teaching styles. Furthermore, effective teaching can be shaped and based on different learning theories and the ways in which they view effective learning and teaching (Grasha, 1993, cited in Al-Hinai, 2011 , 1997; Ellett & Teddlie, 2003; Hativa, 2000; Mckeachie, 1997; Ramsden, 1992Ramsden, , 2003 Seldin, 1998, 1999, cited in Al Hinai, 2011. Additionally, Arreola (2007) argues that a complete definition of good college teaching should include three main dimensions: content expertise, instructional delivery skills and characteristics, and instructional design skills.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, there are internal and external biasing factors in SETs. External biases result from differences in teaching situations over which the teacher has a little or no control, such as student and course characteristics, whereas internal biases revolve around student attitudes and perceptions about the teacher and the course, and can impact their ratings in general (Broder & Dorfman, 1994;Young et al, 1999). Moreover, Braskamp and Ory (1994, cited in Al-Hinai, 2011, p. 102) reported that research findings summarise factors which influence student ratings of their teachers in four categories: course characteristics, student characteristics, instructor characteristics, and administrative procedures and rating instrumentation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Ali¹,

Ajmi²

2013

HES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of student ratings to measure instructors' teaching performance and effectiveness in tertiary education has been an important but controversial tool in the improvement of teaching quality during the past few decades. This is an attempt to explore non-instructional factors of student evaluations by discussing and reviewing relevant literature with regard to the most common non-instructional factors in student ratings. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were used with 14 college instructors. The findings show that most of the teachers support the use of student evaluations as a means of quality control and teaching improvement. However, the great majority of teachers expressed their concerns about the non-instructional factors which affect student ratings and make them meaningless. They reported that gender, time of evaluation, expected grades, nationality of the instructor, and other factors can affect student ratings. The study proposes some recommendations which might make student evaluation practices more useful and informative.Keywords: non-instructional factors, student evaluations, grading leniency, teaching effectiveness, grade inflation Background of the Study RationaleThe use of student ratings to measure instructors' teaching performance and effectiveness has been an important but controversial tool in the improvement of teaching quality during the past few decades (Spooren et al., 2007). However, most tertiary institutions rely on student ratings as an indicator of faculty teaching performance (Benton, 2011, p. 41). Empirical research has shown that there is a significant correlation between student evaluations of teaching (SETs) and student grades (Isely & Singh, 2005, p. 29). Student evaluations have a negative and a pernicious effect on teaching if they are not adjusted appropriately and accurately to measure teaching effectiveness (Arreola, 2007;Schneider, 2013). If student evaluations can be increased by giving higher grades, then they are a flawed instrument for evaluating teaching. Moreover, this process may contribute to the inflation of grades in higher education institutions if faculty members have an incentive to improve their evaluations and attract students (Krautmann & Sander, 1999). The findings of Krautmann and Sander (1999) indicated that grades affect student evaluations, and faculty have the ability to "buy" higher evaluations by lowering their grading standards (p. 61). Schneider (2013) claims that faculty at higher education institutions that place significant weight on student evaluations often report that they give out easy grades, avoid controversial material, and dumb down courses in order to get higher student evaluations (p. 122). He criticises student evaluations as a practice poisonous to the teaching environment, inaccurate, easily manipulated, and lacking psychometric sense, reliability, and validity. Furthermore, D'Apollonia and Abrami (1997, cited in Germain & Scanduran, n.d) claim that student evaluations are unsophisticated and provide little insig...

show abstract

Section: Effective Teaching Fallacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Importance Of Student Evaluations Of Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations