“He just teaches whatever he thinks is important”: Analysis of comments in student evaluations of teaching

Abstract

Student evaluations of teaching are ubiquitous in higher education, widely disliked by faculty, and of uncertain value. The research literature on both their technical validity and their pragmatic utility is unusually polarized, with adamant opponents and defenders.Student evaluations generally consist of two parts: first, a series of questions with Likert-scale type answers (hereafter referred to as the numeric ratings), and second, an unstructured space for comments. Almost all of the existing research has focused on the numeric ratings. Faculty complaints, however, often focus on the comments, perhaps because they can be both vivid and enigmatic (Lindahl & Unger, 2010).In this paper, I will explore a set of comments from student evaluations in a community health nursing class, obtained over the course of four semesters. These comments were strikingly consistent, mostly negative, and initially, deeply puzzling. A preliminary analysis of the comments suggested that the students and the instructor had very different ideas about what the course was for, how learning worked, and what their respective roles should be in that process.Student comments focused on standardized tests as the primary measure of their learning and viewed the faculty role as helping them prepare for those tests. The instructor's efforts to include a critical analysis of social problems, and their links to community health issues, were met with confusion, suspicion, and resistance. In an effort to understand these comments at a deeper level-to take

Bypassing opportunities for quality improvement: insights from Vietnamese administrators’ approaches to student evaluation of teaching

“…First, this study confirms the limited SET impact even in a context where teaching is highly valued. It aligns with various studies in global higher education, showing an emphasis on SET ratings without collaborative problem solving combined with qualitative inquiry, pedagogical reflection and professional support would bring minimal impact on improvement (Padgett, 2021; Thompson, 2013). The administrators commonly perceived roles as middle managers rather than professional developers, leading to their predominant monitoring and disengaging approaches to SET.…”

“…First, multiple global studies have revealed an overreliance on using SET for judgmental and accountability purposes has diminished the professional values of teaching, learning and community engagement in higher education (Mutch and Tatebe, 2017; Padgett, 2021). In New Zealand, SET has been primarily used for institutional compliance with audit-governing bodies (Norsworthy and Sanders, 2021), shifting its original purpose of supporting teaching and learning to a more bureaucratic practice (Barrow and Grant, 2016).…”

“…Secondly, universities prioritise economic efficiency over investing in teaching improvement (Giovannetti, 2015). SET users often focus on numeric ratings and overlook qualitative comments, neglecting the broader social context of student feedback (Padgett, 2021). Due to increased criticism and decreased trust in the SET process, academics are less likely to use SET for teaching improvement.…”

Teaching the ideas of others: Is there a problem?

“…Forgive me. However, while a great deal of attention focuses on student evaluations of teaching (Padgett, 2021), educational skills development (see e.g. Cayir & Ulupinar, in press), and the complexity of health education (Pueyo‐Garrigues et al, 2021), epistemic competence of the sort discussed in this paper is inadequately addressed by nurse educators—and here I include myself.…”

“…Forgive me. However, while a great deal of attention focuses on student evaluations of teaching (Padgett, 2021), educational skills development (see e. In conclusion, this is not an attack upon nurse education, professionalism or professionalization. Quite the reverse.…”