Do grading standards affect student evaluations of teaching? Some new evidence on an old question.

DuCette, Joseph; Kenney, Jane L.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.3.308

Cited by 32 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given that the achieving approach has a positive relationship with marks/GPA, it is reasonable to assume that students in the short run will perceive an EF approach to be more relevant for them. This assumption is also consistent with the findings of linkages between grades and instructor evaluation (Ellis, Burke, Lomire and Mccormack, 2003;Krautmann and Sander, 1999;Chacko, 1983;Meredith, 1982;DuCette and Kenney, 1982;Vasta and Sarmiento, 1979). Indeed, Neath (1996) advises that lenient grading will improve instructor teaching evaluations.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

Bhattacharyya

2004

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most universities solicit feedback from students at the end of a course in order to assess student perceptions of the course. This feedback is used for various objectives, including for evaluating teaching by academic administrators. One would therefore expect faculty to rationally take this into account while formulating their teaching strategy. In certain cases, such strategic considerations can give rise to moral hazard. I have modelled the situation using the well-known Prisoner's Dilemma game and found that in equilibrium, the teaching style will be examination-centric, while considerations of societal good would demand that the teaching style be knowledge-centric. I also discuss the policy implications for this finding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

Bhattacharyya

2004

J Acad Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Higher expected grades predict higher student evaluations (Blackhart, Peruche, DeWall, & Joiner, 2006;DuCette & Kenney, 1982;Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997;Marsh, 1984;Marsh & Roche, 1997, 2000. Faculty lore indicates that students reward easy graders with high evaluations and punish hard graders with low evaluations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Revenge and Student Evaluations of Teaching

Boysen¹

2008

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies also show that inflating grades leads to higher SEF (See, DuCette and Kenney, 1982;Goldberg and Callahan, 1991;Kemp and Kuman, 1990). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Student Evaluation of Faculty

Haskell¹

1997

EPAA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a history of conflicting research on the reliability and validity of student evaluation of faculty (SEF) it has typically not been viewed as an infringement on academic freedom. When it is suggested that SEF may impinge on academic freedom, it is often considered an attack on either student rights, or on the process of evaluating faculty performance in general. Faculty and educational administrator views and surveys are reviewed as SEF is used in salary, promotion and tenure decisions. It is suggested that the literature shows that SEF infringe on instructional responsibilities of faculty by providing a control mechanism over curricular, course content, grading, and teaching methodology. It is further suggested that SEF play a significant role in current attacks on tenure, and that its role in a demographically diverse 21st century educational system has changed from its benign historical origins. It is concluded that contrary to current views, SEF is a serious unrecognized 2 of 32 infringement on academic freedom. .......... Despite the long line of research on the validity of SEF it has not typically been viewed as impinging upon academic freedom. At first glance, the very notion seems counterintuitive, if not downright mean spirited. Indeed, when it is suggested, it is seen as not only a novel idea, but as an attack on either students, or a general attack on evaluating faculty. In fact, one recent handbook for college administrators, (Weeks, 1996) refers to such an idea as "a rather novel attack on the use of student evaluations in assessing a faculty member's performance." Indeed, it has generally been taken for granted that SEF is appropriate and necessary. Unlike the body of research on the methodology of SEF construction and the validity of the ratings, there is a paucity of data on the issue of its impact on academic freedom. .......... The likely reasons for this paucity of data are that (1) there has been little professional mention of SEF as an infringement on academic freedom, (2) some faculty are embarrassed to admit that student evaluations may influence their professional behavior in the classroom, (3), to question the right of students to evaluate faculty may be considered unprofessional if not undemocratic, (4) to question the right of students to evaluate faculty may be seen as self serving, and (5)SEF tends not to be high status research. Finally when SEF is recognized to have an impact, unlike traditional threats to tenure and academic freedom, the deceptive appearance of SEF does not seem to warrant serious concern. .......... In a recent and otherwise carefully reasoned book on academic freedom (Menand, 1996), the issue of SEF is not mentioned.2 At best, the subject of SEF has been the orphan in discussions on academic freedom with no direct logical lineage. At worse, it has been considered illegitimate. There are signs, however, indicating wider faculty recognition of this issue. As administrative policy, the use of SEF has largely evolved in a de facto manner, this pape...

show abstract

Do grading standards affect student evaluations of teaching? Some new evidence on an old question.

Cited by 32 publications

References 13 publications

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

Revenge and Student Evaluations of Teaching

Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Student Evaluation of Faculty

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About