The evaluation and improvement of teaching in higher education

Abstract

Four procedures to evaluate teaching (by students, peers, video-recordings, and direct measurements of student learning) and three uses of the evaluation results (improving teaching, personnel decisions, course handbooks) are reviewed in the light of empirical evidence. Special emphasis is placed on the timing and validity of student ratings and the instruments used. Since none of the procedures appear sufficient in and by itself, a multiple indicator approach, especially for personnel decisions, would seem to be the most defensible one.While it is essential to take evidence of teaching effectiveness into account in considerations for tenure and promotion, faculty must also be given opportunities to become professionals as teachers. Higher education units, designed primarily for this purpose, appear to be effective as judged by their clients (the faculty they have served), but have failed to make an impact on the faculty as a whole. What is requited now is an institutional commitment to quality instruction, i.e. a departmental policy on the evaluation of teaching and faculty development.

26. The Validity of Student Course Evaluations: An Eternal Debate?

“…This is particularly true when the tool is carefully constructed and psychometrically tested before use (for examples, see Abrami, 2001;Theall & Franklin, 2001;Wachtel, 1998;Goldschmid, 1978;Marsh & Roche, 1997;and McKeachie, 1997).…”

Improvement of instruction and teacher effectiveness: are student ratings reliable and valid?

“…In other words, students of high rated lecturers will tend, other things being equal, to achieve more than students of less favourably rated lecturers. Though the conclusion is made that a relationship exists between student ratings and learning, the writer would like to enter a note of caution and to agree with Goldschmid (1978Goldschmid ( , 1976; Rose (1976); Whitely and Doyle (1976);and Meredith (1975), in suggesting a criterion-referenced measurement of student achievement. It is not just sufficient to use the final grades of students as the only criterion of achievement.…”

“…The result not only revealed a positive change in instructional rating by the students, but the students obtained higher class averages on measures of student motivation and a final common examination. Although the literature tends to favour the use of feedback as a means of improving instructional quality, authors such as Sherman and Winstead (1975), Frey (1976), Pohlman (1975), and Goldschmid (1978) have suggested that areas of instruction that require modification need to be specified. In addition to this suggestion, Rotem and Glasman (1977), have stipulated that lecturers requiring positive change as a result of feedback received must first of all show concern about the feedback and must be motivated to achieving the desired result -instructional improvement.…”

“…Formative evaluation normally provides lecturers with information which, it is assumed, assists in improving teaching effectiveness Marsh, 1981;Derry, 1979;Arubayi, 1986) whilst summative evaluation assists administrators in taking decisions as to hiring, tenure, termination or promotion of academic staff Thorne, 1980;Goldschmid, 1978). Another use of student ratings, though apparently secondary, is to assist students in selecting courses and lecturers (Marsh, 1981;Cohen, 1980;Goldschmid, 1978). The probable success in the utilization of the results of student ratings in the areas mentioned above may have led to the widespread use of student evaluations in most, if not all, institutions of higher learning in North America .…”

Etude de l efficacite de deux techniques d enseignement de l informatique dans le cadre d un modele systemique d enseignement-apprentissage

“…Le domaine de l'évaluation des apprentissages en éducation existe déjà depuis plusieurs années aux États-Unis comme au Québec (Goldschmid, 1978;Conseil Supérieur de l'Éducation, 1983 (Larose, 1985;Stufflebeam, 1968;Unesco, 1981;Stolovitch et Larocque, 1983;Jomphe et Adam 1984). "Aujourd'hui il nous faut une vision globale d'une situation d'enseignement pour compléter le processus décisionnel" (Ouellet, 1994).…”