Liberal grading improves evaluations but not performance.

Vasta, Ross; Sarmiento, Robert F.

doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.207

Cited by 49 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(7 reference statements)

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

“…Although students were told that these grades would have no bearing on their class grades, the manipulated grades reported to the students were predictive of instructor ratings. Vasta and Sarmiento (1979) used a slightly different procedure but found similar results. In their study, students received accurate numerical scores on their exams, but the meaning of the scores was manipulated to yield higher or lower grades based on the curve.…”

Section: Evaluations and Extensions Of The Leniency Hypothesissupporting

confidence: 81%

The effect of perceived class mean on the evaluation of instruction

Norvilitis

Jie

2009

Educ Asse Eval Acc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A total of 232 college students in six different courses in three departments participated in a study to examine the effect of perceived course mean on course and instructor evaluations. Following a midsemester exam, students were given their actual earned exam scores and a manipulated class mean that was either ten percentage points higher or lower than the actual class average on the exam. Participants then completed an evaluation of the course and instructor. It was hypothesized that students scoring above the manipulated mean would rate the course and instructor more highly than students scoring below the manipulated mean. It was further hypothesized that students who were told that the class mean was higher would rate the course and instructor more highly than students who were told that the mean was lower. Results supported the first hypothesis. However, hypothesis two was not supported. Students receiving the lower manipulated class mean rated instructors more favorably. Results suggest the need to consider both individual exam scores and class averages in understanding the grade-teaching evaluation relationship.

show abstract

“…3 Although student evaluations are reliable and valid in assessing teacher effectiveness, 4-6 they can be biased. 3,[7][8][9][10] Studies suggesting possible bias in student evaluations demonstrate that the higher the grades students receive, the higher the students rate their teachers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Planning and Implementation of a Faculty Peer Review Teaching Project

Schultz¹,

Latif²

2006

Am J Pharm Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. Describe the planning and implementation of a pilot peer review system, assess factors related to acceptance by faculty and administration, and suggest ways to increase the number of faculty members reviewed and serving as reviewers. Design. A faculty-driven process was used to create a model for peer review. Faculty members completed a survey instrument with open-ended responses for indicating reasons for participation or nonparticipation, components of the evaluation process that they would like to see changed, and what they found most helpful or insightful about the process of peer review. Assessment. Faculty acceptance of and satisfaction with the peer review process is attributed to the development and implementation process being faculty driven and to peer reviews not being required for promotion and tenure decisions. Faculty members who were reviewed stated that the process was helpful and insightful and would lead to better teaching and learning. Conclusion. A successful faculty peer-review process was created and implemented within 6 weeks. All of the faculty members who chose to be peer reviewed or serve as reviewers reported satisfaction in gaining insights into their teaching, learning innovative approaches to their teaching, and gaining confidence in their teaching pedagogy. Techniques for achieving 100% participation in the peer review process should be addressed in the future.

show abstract

Liberal grading improves evaluations but not performance.

Cited by 49 publications

References 10 publications

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

The effect of perceived class mean on the evaluation of instruction

The Planning and Implementation of a Faculty Peer Review Teaching Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About