Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: What the research reveals

Wright, Penny L.; Whittington, R. W. T.; Whittenburg, Gerald E.

doi:10.1016/0748-5751(84)90002-2

Cited by 21 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The goal of SETs is to determine the teachers’ teaching effectiveness (Marsh, 2007). Such instruments have been used throughout academia for a long time, but their validity, reliability, and usefulness are still being challenged (Aleamoni, 1974, 1999; Aleamoni and Hexner, 1980; Arreola, 2007; Costin et al , 1971; Feldman, 1978, 1984; Marsh, 1984, 2007; Marsh and Roche, 1997; Rodin and Rodin, 1972; Wright et al , 1984). This makes sense since teaching is a complex activity (Shulman, 1987), so the factors used to measure a teacher’s effectiveness are multidimensional (Marsh, 1991, 2007; Marsh and Bailey, 1993) and difficult to comprehend.…”

Section: Defining Student Evaluation Of Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching

Ching

2018

HEED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Competition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach The current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included. Findings Relevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways. Originality/value Given the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

show abstract

Section: Defining Student Evaluation Of Teachingmentioning

confidence: 99%

A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching

Ching

2018

HEED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given the above, some researchers have recommended adjusting SET results for biases (Wright et al, 1984). Apparently, it is important to differentiate an improvement in SET as a result of better teaching from one which results, say, from teaching a smaller class.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirical investigation of the factors affecting SET results

Koh

Tan

1997

International Journal of Educational Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigates the factors affecting student evaluation of teaching (SET). A total of 170 teaching evaluations conducted at the Nanyang Business School (Singapore) were analysed by regressing the overall teaching index on the following variables: subject characteristics (stream, year and type), class characteristics (format, size, time and day), evaluation characteristics (response, time and day), and teacher characteristics (age, gender and rank). Indicates that better teaching evaluation is associated with a smaller class size and a larger number of evaluation responses. Also, teachers of middle-level subjects receive relatively poorer SET results. Further, SET administered in the later part of the week attract better student evaluation. Finds that teacher characteristics have no significant impact on SET results. Confirms the existence of potential biasing factors, hence, SET should be used with caution and not be the only method of evaluating teachers.

show abstract

“…Currently, student responses to multiple-choice questionnaires are the primary tool used in evaluating classroom performance, but the objectivity of these student evaluations of faculty has been the subject of much debate [34]. For example, there is evidence that high student evaluations of faculty correlate positively with high faculty evaluations of students and small class sizes [67,89]. Thus, those who resist grade inflation and teach large classes may be unfairly penalized.…”

Section: "But There's No Way To Evaluate Teaching and Service"mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, student evaluations could be supplemented by peer evaluations, a chair evaluation, a dean evaluation, the evaluation of external referees, and a self-evaluation. The evaluations of faculty by their peers and superiors could be based on classroom visits, interviews with a representative sampling of current and former students, evidence of scholarship (including, but not limited to publication) relating to the faculty member's teaching methods or course content, evidence of new courses developed or revisions to existing courses, and samples of teaching materials, such as syllabi, reading lists, handouts, assignment sheets, tests, and copies of graded work and completed student theses and dissertations [57,73,86,89]. Utilizing a diverse array of evaluators and evaluative tools should help counteract potential bias and render reasonably accurate results.…”

Section: "But There's No Way To Evaluate Teaching and Service"mentioning

confidence: 99%