Student Grades and Average Ratings of Instructional Quality: The Need for Adjustment

Student Evaluations and Moral Hazard

“…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.…”

“…I have modelled the situation using the well known game of Prisoner's Dilemma 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. Grade inflation is considered a fact of life (Pedersen, 1997;Samuelson, 1991), and researchers have documented the linkage between grade inflation and student evaluations (Ellis et al, 2003;Eiszler, 2002;Read et al, 2001;Krautmann and Sander, 1999). We should look for systemic solutions to systemic problems, and some have been suggested.…”

A hierarchical approach to Students’ Assessments of Instruction

“…Overall, those expecting higher grades, independent of course difficulty, give higher ratings. Most previous studies have found a similar positive relationship between expected grades and ratings (see Ellis et al 2003;Marsh 1987;Wachtel 1998). This could be further evidence for validity in that better grades are reflecting better learning or a bias in that students are rewarding their teachers for better-than-deserved grades.…”

“…The results have generally been mixed. Some effects studied were student gender (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999, interest in subject matter (Wachtel 1998), reason for taking a course (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999Algozzine et al 2004;Feldman 1978;, whether the student is a major or nonmajor (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999, class size (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999Algozzine et al 2004;Ellis et al 2003;Feldman 1978;Franklin and Theall 1992;Marsh 1987;McKeachie 1997;Wachtel 1998), subject matter of the class (Aleamoni 1999;Feldman 1978;Wachtel 1998), level of the class (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999Algozzine et al 2004;Ellis et al 2003;Feldman 1978Feldman , 1989Franklin and Theall 1992;Wachtel 1998), time and day of the class (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999Feldman 1978;Wachtel 1998), amount of work assigned (Algozzine et al 2004;Feldman 1978Feldman , 1989McKeachie 1997;Seldin 1993), teacher gender (Aleamoni 1981(Aleamoni , 1999Ellis et al 2003;96 A. Soch...…”

Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: testing a sequential path model

“…Furthermore, in many cases they are the only available measure of teaching effectiveness (d' Apollonia & Abrami, 1997) and thus it is important to understand what psychological variables are associated with such ratings. To this end, some studies have centered on concrete factors, such as grading policies and workload, and others have focused on more psychological concepts, including rapport and enthusiasm (Best & Addison, 2000;Ellis, Burke, Lomire, & McCormack, 2003;Feldman, 1976;McCarthy, Macphail, & Munro, 2003). Recently, Filak and Sheldon (2003) argued that variations in students' psychological *Corresponding author: vffilak@bsu.edu need satisfaction account for many reported effects.…”