When mode does not matter: evaluation in class versus out of class

Kordts-Freudinger, Robert; Geithner, Eva

doi:10.1080/13803611.2013.834613

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These factors include, for example, (pseudo)voluntariness, perceived anonymity, social desirability, and cognitive load (Dittmann-Domenichini and Halbherr 2015; Hardré et al 2010;Hardré et al 2012;Kordts-Freudinger and Geithner 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey-based formats of assessing teaching quality in higher education are widely used and will likely continue to be used by higher education institutions around the world as various global trends contributing to their widespread use further evolve. Although the use of mobile devices for course evaluation continues to grow, there remain some unresolved aspects of the classic paper and web-based modes of evaluation. In the current study, the multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach (MGCFA), an accepted methodological approach in general mixed-method survey research, was chosen to address some of the methodological issues when comparing these two evaluation modes. By randomly assigning one of the two modes to 33 continuing training courses at a Swiss higher education institution, this study tested whether the two different modes of assessing teaching quality yield the same results. The practical implications for course evaluation practice in institutions of higher education as well as the implications and limitations of the chosen methodological approach are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[8,9] In other studies, "rigor" such as students' effort, involvement, workload, and the difficulty of the material showed a negative association with the class evaluation. [10][11][12][13] Kordts-Freudinger and Geithner [14] indicated that the situation surrounding the evaluation also affected the student's evaluation. In his review, Clayson [13] indicated that student evaluations related positively to perceptions of their own learning and negatively to perceptions of rigor.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in student evaluations of a medical ethics class 3 years later

Tonami

Umemori

Nitta

et al. 2017

European Journal of General Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims:The present study investigated changes in the student evaluations of a medical ethics class after studying in dental school for an additional 3 years. Materials and Methods: A problem-based learning medical ethics class in which students discuss the "right to death with dignity" using video material as a trigger was offered to third-year students at the School of Dentistry. At the end of the class, each student submitted a report describing their own opinions of the ethical questions raised as well as their impression of the class. Three years later, the same students were surveyed regarding cognitive changes in class evaluations. The changes in class evaluations were statistically analyzed with reference to the contents of the initial report (P < 0.05). Results: Student evaluations of the class rose 3 years later. One reason for the evaluation rise was considered to be the growth in their reflection capacity during additional years of learning experience in the dental school. Students whose report demonstrated that they were engaged by the ethical dilemma tended to raise their evaluation of the class. On the other hand, students who mentioned the difficulty of the task or the shocking images in the video material in their initial report did not raise their evaluation later. Thus, students' perception of the task or setting in the class appeared to have a continuing effect on their evaluation. Conclusion: The results confirmed that student evaluations of a class would change after additional years of learning experience.

show abstract

“…For example, Youssef showed the benefits of including open‐ended student reflections in addition to closed‐ended questions for improving courses, 14 and Morrison reported that web‐based SETs resulted in lower response rates and lower overall ratings but had the benefit of more detailed comments 18 . In response to the question of when SETs should be collected, studies have analyzed whether retrospective SETs such as exit interviews or immediate SETs tied to a specific course were more reliable 6 and whether SETs should be provided in class or later in an out‐of‐class setting 19 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Evaluations of Teaching: Dental and Dental Hygiene Students’ and Faculty Members’ Perspectives

Grillo

Murdoch‐Kinch

Ramaswamy

et al. 2016

Journal of Dental Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to explore dental and dental hygiene students' and faculty members' perceptions of student evaluations of teaching (SET) and determine whether dental vs. dental hygiene student, beginning vs. advanced student, and faculty vs. student responses differed. Perceived benefits, challenges, and suggestions for conducting SETs optimally were also assessed. Survey data were collected from 329 dental students (D1: 108; D2: 91; D3&4: 130) and 68 dental hygiene students (DH2: 26; DH3: 19; DH4: 23) (overall response rates 76%/92%) and 56 dental and eight dental hygiene faculty members (response rates 41%/100%). Faculty respondents were more positive about SETs than students (five-point scale with 1=disagree: 3.85 vs. 3.39; p<0.001), with seniors being the least positive (mean 2.42). Respondents agreed that all students should complete SETs (3.87 vs. 3.61; p=0.068), with faculty agreeing more strongly than students that all courses should be evaluated (4.32/4.04; p=0.046). Students agreed more strongly than faculty that SETs should occur during regular class time (3.97/3.44; p<0.001) and are too long (3.47/3.09; p=0.010) and that results should be shared with students (4.03/3.57; p=0.002). Open-ended responses showed that students perceived more benefits of SETs for faculty members than for students and that the most frequently mentioned problem was that SETs do not result in changes. Faculty members were generally more positive than students (especially seniors) about SETs. These findings suggest that, according to these respondents, SETs should be completed by all students for all courses, be short, provide opportunities for open-ended comments, and be administered in class to improve response rate. In addition, SET results and how SETs are used to improve courses should be shared with students.Mr.

show abstract

When mode does not matter: evaluation in class versus out of class

Cited by 7 publications

References 16 publications

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

Online vs. offline course evaluation revisited: testing the invariance of a course evaluation questionnaire using a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis framework

Changes in student evaluations of a medical ethics class 3 years later

Student Evaluations of Teaching: Dental and Dental Hygiene Students’ and Faculty Members’ Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About