The dimensionality of student ratings of teaching: integration of uni‐ and multidimensional models

Apodaca, Pedro; Grad, Hector

doi:10.1080/03075070500340101

Cited by 46 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Their teacher charisma factor explained 69% of the variation in the "lecturer ability" factor and 37% in the "module attributes" factors. Even if SET scores have a multidimensional structure, there can also be a very strong underlying factor (Apodaca and Grad 2005). Confirmatory factor analyses have repeatedly shown that such an underlying factor also arises in the SET-37 instrument (Spooren and Mortelmans 2006;Spooren 2011).…”

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of student evaluation of teaching (SET) to evaluate and improve teaching is widespread amongst institutions of higher education. Many authors have searched for a conclusive understanding about the influence of student, course, and teacher characteristics on SET. One hotly debated discussion concerns the interpretation of the positive and statistically significant relationship that has been found between course grades and SET scores. In addition to reviewing the literature, the main purpose of the present study is to examine the influence of course grades and other characteristics of students, courses, and teachers on SET. Data from 1244 evaluations were collected using the SET-37 instrument and analyzed by means of cross-classified multilevel models. The results show positive significant relationships between course grades, class attendance, the examination period in which students receive their highest course grades, and the SET score. These relationships, however, are subject to different interpretations. Future research should focus on providing a definitive and empirically supported interpretation for these relationships. In the absence of such an interpretation, it will remain unclear whether these relationships offer proof of the validity of SET or whether they are a biasing factor.

show abstract

Section: Instrumentmentioning

confidence: 97%

Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Apodaca and Grad (2005), this is complicated by the different formative and the summative goals of teaching evaluation; whilst formative goals require precise and specific feedback as a guide to the improvement of teaching performance; summative goals need an overall parsimony that facilitates the evaluation and judgment making process. Although effective teaching is multidimensional, there are differences across instruments used to rate specific dimensions that underlie effective teaching (Abrami et al 1996).…”

Section: Multi-dimensionality Of Student Ratings Of Teaching Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Profiling Teacher/Teaching Using Descriptors Derived from Qualitative Feedback: Formative and Summative Applications

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Considerable work has been done on student evaluation of teaching/teachers, but reservations remain about its use for summative purposes. Student ratings are not universally accepted as being reliable, nor can they provide really meaningful information. Qualitative comments can provide a better understanding but they tend not to be userfriendly from lack of structure and connectedness. This study attempts to devise a method for 'quantifying' students' comments to increase their usefulness in complementing/confirming ratings. The quantified results enable the profile construction of what students regard as an effective/ineffective teacher, and enable identification of strengths and weaknesses. Our findings counter some commonly held assumptions, including those which held that high ratings are dependent on small class size and 'dumbing down' of courses and the consequent expectation of high grades. The findings also indicate that students value teaching quality more than teacher characteristics, suggesting their ability to make valid judgments about teaching effectiveness.

show abstract

“…(2001), coinciding with a first-order factor structure (two factors). However, one limitation of this more comprehensive assessment instrument is the great number of items included, making it difficult to administer and interpret (Apodaca & Grad, 2005;Ginns, Prosser, & Barrie, 2007). For this reason, we assume that there is still a need for simpler instruments that will offer us a quick understanding of the TL process under way, but without overlooking fundamental statistical values nor the complexity of the phenomenon being studied.…”

Section: Models and Instruments For Assessment Of The Teaching-learnimentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation Study of the Scale for Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process, Student Version (ATLP-S)

Fuente

Sander

Justicia

et al. 2017

EJREP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The dimensionality of student ratings of teaching: integration of uni‐ and multidimensional models

Cited by 46 publications

References 37 publications

Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education

Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education

Profiling Teacher/Teaching Using Descriptors Derived from Qualitative Feedback: Formative and Summative Applications

Validation Study of the Scale for Assessment of the Teaching-Learning Process, Student Version (ATLP-S)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About