Student Ratings of Instruction: Change the Timetable to Improve Instruction

Abstract

IntroductionDebate over the collection and use of student ratings of instructors is likely to continue for as long as such procedures are applied in higher education. Instructors object to such aspects of the practice as the use of unreliable and generally inappropriate rating forms, permitting students to make judgments about the quality of teaching, and, in particular, the use of rating data in promotion and tenure decisions. High acceptance among administrators, however, suggests that for decades to come they almost certainly will continue to rely upon students' judgments in making professional decisions related to the advancement of instructors.If student ratings are to be a fact of life, is there a way instructors can turn them to their own profit, using them to improve the quality of their instruction? Could multiple evaluations administered throughout the semester serve a more useful purpose to instructors than a single rating conducted at the termination of a course? Given the secure status of the student rating process, the issue should now become one of deciding when student evaluations should take place, and how often. BackgroundStudents have been asked to evaluate classroom instruction for several decades, and the practice seems likely to continue for many years. A survey by Riggs (1975) found that student input was collected in about ninety percent of two hundred institutions studied, and that two-thirds of these institutions used the results in administrative decisions related to the professional advancement of the instructor. More recently, Seldin (1984) found that administrators utilized student-rating data in two-thirds of six hundred sixteen institutions surveyed.

Midterm Evaluation of Teaching Provides Helpful Feedback to Instructors

“…Althoughsome student n t i n g forms take various course formats into considention, the fnrms used hy most institutions do not distinguish among various course formats, such as large lecture, tutorial, small lecture, or seminar (Ciscell, 1987). Althoughsome student n t i n g forms take various course formats into considention, the fnrms used hy most institutions do not distinguish among various course formats, such as large lecture, tutorial, small lecture, or seminar (Ciscell, 1987).…”

ERIC Review: Faculty Evaluation in Community Colleges

“…They include over-interpretation, only one aspect of teaching reflected in the data, students not equipped to judge some aspects of teaching, and conceos for reliability and validity. Ciscell (1987) examined the pros and cons of asking students to evaluate classroom instruction. In his examination, he points out that the importance of student ratings in the overall faculty evaluation process has been described in a number of important studies and reviews.…”