Creating confusion or creative evaluation? The use of student evaluation of teaching surveys in Japanese tertiary education

2010 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Burden
Keyword(s):  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

scholarly journals The mechanization of teaching: Teachers’ metaphors and evaluation in Japanese tertiary education

2011 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Peter Burden
Keyword(s):  
Formative Evaluation ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Teacher Involvement ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Conceptions Of Teaching ◽  
Reflective Process ◽  
University Teachers ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Specific Evaluation

Twelve ELT university teachers reflected, through using metaphors, in interviews about the use of Student Evaluation of Teaching surveys (SETs) in their respective universities. Studying teachers' metaphor reveals their first-hand experience of how they were affected in their teaching by SETs. Metaphors suggest that SETs do not match teachers’ conceptions of teaching as an art. Such evaluation has caused relations between teachers, administrators, and students to fracture due to competitive ranking. While participants accept formative evaluation as a necessary process to give insights to teachers, they wish for a more open, improvement-focused, cooperative, specific evaluation. They want more teacher involvement and more dialogue between teachers to discuss the results of SETs to aid the reflective process for change. 大学でELT担当の12名の教師にインタビューを実施し、各自の大学での学生による授業評価（SETｓ）についてメタファー（比喩）にて述べてもらった。教師のメタファーは、学生による授業評価（SETｓ）で各々の教え方にどのような影響があったかの率直な考えを表している。メタファーは、学生による授業評価（SETｓ）と教師側の技術としての‘教える’という考え方は合致しないということを示唆している。このような評価は、競争的な評価をすることで教師側・大学当局側・学生側の関係を壊している。被験者（つまり学生）側が必要な過程として形成された評価を受け入れて、教師側に新たな教育的ひらめきをもたらさなければならない、その一方で被験者側はより開放された、改善を目的とした、連携された、特定の評価を望むのである。被験者側のコメントでは、教師側の更なる向上の必要性、また教師側と学生による授業評価（SETｓ）の結果について意見交換をし、授業の変化をもたらせたいとしている。

scholarly journals Responding to two arguments against the student evaluation of teaching scheme in Nigerian universities

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-62
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani
Keyword(s):  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Tertiary Education ◽  
Education Sector ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) has been around Universities in the Western and Eastern Hemispheres for a few decades now. SET is making in-roads into the Nigerian tertiary education sector. In this project, I identify two arguments (or assumptions) behind the opposition to the institution of SET in Nigeria. I demonstrate that these arguments/assumptions are incorrect and their worries not enough to scrap the programme. I also show that opposition to SET has been witnessed elsewhere before SET gained acceptance.

scholarly journals Lessons Learned from Research on Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

2021 ◽  
pp. 237-256
Author(s):  
Bob Uttl
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Effective Teaching ◽  
Teaching Effectiveness ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
High Stakes ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Knowledge Class ◽  
Teaching Awards ◽  
Student Preference ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

AbstractIn higher education, anonymous student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness and to make high-stakes decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, merit pay, and teaching awards. SET have many desirable properties: SET are quick and cheap to collect, SET means and standard deviations give aura of precision and scientific validity, and SET provide tangible seemingly objective numbers for both high-stake decisions and public accountability purposes. Unfortunately, SET as a measure of teaching effectiveness are fatally flawed. First, experts cannot agree what effective teaching is. They only agree that effective teaching ought to result in learning. Second, SET do not measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness as students do not learn more from more highly rated professors. Third, SET depend on many teaching effectiveness irrelevant factors (TEIFs) not attributable to the professor (e.g., students’ intelligence, students’ prior knowledge, class size, subject). Fourth, SET are influenced by student preference factors (SPFs) whose consideration violates human rights legislation (e.g., ethnicity, accent). Fifth, SET are easily manipulated by chocolates, course easiness, and other incentives. However, student ratings of professors can be used for very limited purposes such as formative feedback and raising alarm about ineffective teaching practices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document