Students' evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential baises, and utility.

Abstract

This article provides an overview of findings and research designs used to study students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness and examines implications and directions for future research. The focus of the investigation is on the author's own research that has led to the development of the Students' Evaluations of Educational Quality (SEEQ), but it also incorporates a wide range of other research. Based on this overview, class-average student ratings are (a) multidimensional; (b) reliable and stable; (c) primarily a function of the instructor who teaches a course rather than the course that is taught; (d) relatively valid against a variety of indicators of effective teaching; (e) relatively unaffected by a variety of variables hypothesized as potential biases; and (f) seen to be useful by faculty as feedback about their teaching, by students for use in course selection, and by administrators for use in personnel decisions. In future research a construct validation approach should be used in which it is recognized that effective teaching and students' evaluations designed to reflect it are multifaceted, that there is no single criterion of effective teaching, and that tentative interpretations of relations with validity criteria and with potential biases must be scrutinized in different contexts and examine multiple criteria of effective teaching. Students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness are commonly collected at North American universities and colleges and are widely endorsed by students, faculty, and administrators (Centra, 1979; Leventhal, Perry, Abrami, Turcotte, & Kane, 1981). The purposes of these evaluations are variously to provide (a) diagnostic feedback to faculty about the effectiveness of their I would like to thank

Exploring Variability Sources in Student Evaluation of Teaching via Many-Facet Rasch Model

“…While some studies claim that SET provides valid data in general (e.g. Marsh, 1984, Nelson & Lynch, 1984, Zangenehzadeh, 1988 and no bias in particular, other studies reported bias in the data and concluded deficiency in validity of SET scores (e.g. Centra, 1993, Haladayna & Hess, 1994, Marsh, 1987, Marsh & Roche, 2000.…”

A Psychometric Evaluation of Two Teaching Effectiveness Scales

“…Participants completed two types of teaching effectiveness scales, namely the Marsh Student Evaluations of Educational Quality (Marsh, 1984;1987) and the Teaching Feedback Survey, (Mahfooz Ansari & Mustafa Achoui Ansari, 2000). The first scale consisted of 29 items and was categorized into eight dimensions; Learning/Value, Enthusiasm, Organization, Group Interaction, Individual Rapport, Breadth of Coverage, Exams/Grades, and Assignment.…”

“…Many institutions of higher learning all over the world have adopted a system of students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness especially in Western countries (Marsh, 1984;1987;Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997). As reported by Marsh, Remmers (1927) initiated the first systematic research programme of students' evaluation of teaching www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol.…”

“…The purposes of these scales, according to Marsh (1984;1987), are varied. They include: 1) diagnostic feedback to a faculty on the effectiveness of their teaching, 2) to measure teaching effectiveness and to use it in tenure and /promotion decisions, 3) information for students to use in the selection of courses and instructors 4) a measure of the quality of the course, to be used in course improvement and curriculum development, and 5) an outcome on a process description for research and teaching.…”

“…These scales, whether they were called student evaluations of educational quality (Marsh, 1984;1987), course experience questionnaires (Richardson, 1994), endeavour instructional rating and students' rating of instruction (d 'Apollonia & Abrami, 1997); or teaching feedback survey, (Mahfooz Ansari & Mustafa Achoui Ansari, 2000), were all constructed to evaluate students' experiences of teaching within the classroom.…”