Student ratings of instruction: Validity and normative interpretations

Brandenburg, Dale C.; Slinde, Jeffrey A.; Batista, Enrique E.

doi:10.1007/bf00991945

Cited by 37 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The finding that T A ratings equal or exceed those of fulltime faculty is similar to the findings reported by Blount et al (1978), McKeachie (1951), and Nevill et al (1978), but contrasts with those of Brandenburg et al (1977) and Centra and Creech (1976). As noted previously, the latter studies were large-scale examinations of thousands of individual classes, and although such studies are more likely to produce generalizable results, they suffer a disadvantage in that ;I number of relevant variables mav be masked or uncon-trolled.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Students' Perceptions of Faculty and Graduate Students as Classroom Teachers

Schuckman

1990

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the type of survey presented here to provoke students' reflection of their own loosely defined expectations. This information can then be used to introduce a discussion about the goals and content of your course. In other words, use information from a survey, such as the one described here, to improve your own performance and that of your students. ReferencesBrown, L. T. (1983). Some more misconceptions about psychology among introductory psychology students. Teaching of Psychology, 10, 207-210. Gutman, A. (1979). Misconceptions of psychology and performance in the introductory course. Teuching of Psychology, 6, 159-161. Lamal, P. A. (1979). College students' common beliefs about psychology.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Students' Perceptions of Faculty and Graduate Students as Classroom Teachers

Schuckman

1990

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Evidence of these influences vary in consistency and degree. For example, it is rather well accepted that ratings may vary depending on whether a course is taken as an elective or as a requirement (Costin, Greenough, and Menges, 1971;Brandenburg, Slinde, and Batista, 1977;Feldman, 1978). There is less certainty of the possible influence of grading leniency on ratings (Greenwald and Gillmore, 1997).…”

Section: Past Efforts To Establish the Validity Of Student Ratingsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Some research has addressed our ability to generalize student ratings to different contexts. Studies (Costin, Greenough, and Menges, 1971;Brandenburg, Slinde, and Batista, 1977;Feldman, 1978) have consistently shown that we need to interpret differently ratings collected from students taking a course as an elective rather than as a requirement. With our Instructor and Course Evaluation System (ICES) at the University of Illinois we account for this disparity by providing separate norm group comparisons for courses that are taken as electives, mixed electiverequirements, or requirements.…”

Section: Collecting Evidence Based On Generalizability Aspects Wouldmentioning

confidence: 98%

How Do Student Ratings Measure Up to a New Validity Framework?

Ory

Ryan

2001

New Drctns for Instit Rsrch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examine student ratings within a new framework that emphasizes six distinct aspects of validity : content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential. They It is fitting that as the new millennium arrives, a major revision of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, 1985) has been completed and is the subject of much debate and dialogue. It reflects some changes in how the assessment community thinks about the concept of validity. The literature responsible for this shift began with Messick' s benchmark chapter on validity in the third edition of Educational Measurement (1989) and continued with Shepard' s article in the Review of Educational Research (1993) and articles on the consequences of assessment by Lane, Parke, and Stone, 1998;Linn, 1998;Reckase, 1998;Yen, 1998;Cronbach, 1989; and Moss, 1992, 1996. How validation efforts should be conducted and how assessment results are used is shifting as a consequence of this body of work.What are the implications of this work for student ratings of instruction? We take up this fundamental question in this chapter. We begin this effort by defining the concepts that are the basis for a new unified concept of validity. We briefly summarize the past validity research on student ratings using the traditional validity framework. Based on the concepts presented, we then do a critical analysis of student ratings research using the new validation framework. Synthesizing the results of the analysis, we propose an initial agenda for future student ratings' validation efforts.

show abstract

“…11 Brandenburg et al found a strong correlation between student ratings of instructors and elective or required status. 12 These findings were also supported by Scherr and Scheer in an analysis of student evaluations of business courses. 13 It is not surprising that students' evaluations would be higher for a course they have chosen to take than for one they were required to take.…”

Section: Required Vs Optional: the Tradeoffsmentioning

confidence: 54%