I checked the prof on ratemyprofessors: effect of anonymous, online student evaluations of professors on students’ self-efficacy and expectations

2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 943-961
Author(s):  
Stefanie S. Boswell ◽  
Sara L. Sohr-Preston
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Online Student

How Many Responses Do We Need? Using Generalizability Analysis to Estimate Minimum Necessary Response Rates for Online Student Evaluations

2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 395-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret W. Gerbase ◽  
Michèle Germond ◽  
Bernard Cerutti ◽  
Nu V. Vu ◽  
Anne Baroffio
Keyword(s):  
Response Rates ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Generalizability Analysis

scholarly journals Clinical Educator Self-Efficacy, Self-Evaluation and Its Relationship With Student Evaluations of Clinical Teaching

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Vaughan
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Teaching ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Educator ◽  
Clinical Educators ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

Abstract Background In a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of teaching across any degree, multiple sources of information can help develop an educators’ understanding of their teaching quality. In the health professions, student evaluations of clinical teaching are commonplace however, self-evaluation of teaching is less common, and exploration of clinical educators’ self-efficacy even less so. The aim of the study was to evaluate how a clinical educator’s self-evaluation of teaching intersects with their self-efficacy, to ascertain if that matches student evaluation of their teaching. This information may assist in facilitating targeted professional development to improve teaching quality. Methods Clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University (VU) were invited to complete: a) self-evaluation version of the Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (OCTQ); and b) the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Teaching (SECT) questionnaire. Students in the VU program completed the OCTQ for each of the clinical educators they worked with during semester 2, 2017. Results Completed OCTQ and SECT were received from 37 clinical educators. These were matched with 308 student evaluations (mean of 6 student ratings per educator). Three possible educator cohorts were identified: a) high clinical eductor self-OCTQ with low student evaluation; b) low clinical educator self-evaluation and high student evaluations; and, c) no difference between self- and student evaulations. Clinical educators in the first cohort demonstrated significantly higher SECT subscale scores (effect size >0.42) than their colleagues. Age, gender, teaching qualification, and years practicing or years as a clinical educator were not associated with clinical educator OCTQ scores or the SECT subscales. Conclusions Targeted professional development directed towards fostering self-efficacy may provide an avenue for engaging those clinical educators whose self-efficacy is low and/or those who did not receive high student evaluations. Given there is no gold standard measure of clinical teaching quality, educators should engage with multiple sources of feedback to benchmark their current performance level, and identify opportunities to improve. Student and self-evaluations using the OCTQ and evaluation of self-efficacy using the SECT, are useful tools for inclusion in a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of the clinical learning environment.

scholarly journals Clinical educator self-efficacy, self-evaluation and its relationship with student evaluations of clinical teaching

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Vaughan
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Teaching ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Educator ◽  
Clinical Educators ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

Abstract Background In a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of teaching across any degree, multiple sources of information can help develop an educators’ understanding of their teaching quality. In the health professions, student evaluations of clinical teaching are commonplace. However, self-evaluation of teaching is less common, and exploration of clinical educators’ self-efficacy even less so. The aim of the study was to evaluate how a clinical educator’s self-evaluation of teaching intersects with their self-efficacy, to ascertain if that matches student evaluation of their teaching. This information may assist in facilitating targeted professional development to improve teaching quality. Methods Clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University (VU) were invited to complete: a) self-evaluation version of the Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (OCTQ); and b) the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Teaching (SECT) questionnaire. Students in the VU program completed the OCTQ for each of the clinical educators they worked with during semester 2, 2017. Results Completed OCTQ and SECT were received from 37 clinical educators. These were matched with 308 student evaluations (mean of 6 student ratings per educator). Three possible educator cohorts were identified: a) high clinical eductor self-OCTQ with low student evaluation; b) low clinical educator self-evaluation and high student evaluations; and, c) no difference between self- and student evaulations. Clinical educators in the first cohort demonstrated significantly higher SECT subscale scores (effect size > 0.42) than their colleagues. Age, gender, teaching qualification, and years practicing or years as a clinical educator were not associated with clinical educator OCTQ scores or the SECT subscales. Conclusions Targeted professional development directed towards fostering self-efficacy may provide an avenue for engaging those clinical educators whose self-efficacy is low and/or those who did not receive high student evaluations. Given there is no gold standard measure of clinical teaching quality, educators should engage with multiple sources of feedback to benchmark their current performance level, and identify opportunities to improve. Student and self-evaluations using the OCTQ and evaluation of self-efficacy using the SECT, are useful tools for inclusion in a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of the clinical learning environment.

scholarly journals Clinical educator self-efficacy, self-evaluation and its relationship with student evaluations of clinical teaching

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett Vaughan
Keyword(s):  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Clinical Teaching ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Teaching Quality ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Multiple Sources ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Educator ◽  
Clinical Educators ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching

Abstract Background In a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of teaching across any degree, multiple sources of information can help develop an educators’ understanding of their teaching quality. In the health professions, student evaluations of clinical teaching are commonplace however, self-evaluation of teaching is less common, and exploration of clinical educators’ self-efficacy even less so. The aim of the study was to evaluate how a clinical educator’s self-evaluation of teaching intersects with their self-efficacy, to ascertain if that matches student evaluation of their teaching. This information may assist in facilitating targeted professional development to improve teaching quality. Methods Clinical educators in the osteopathy program at Victoria University (VU) were invited to complete: a) self-evaluation version of the Osteopathy Clinical Teaching Questionnaire (OCTQ); and b) the Self-Efficacy in Clinical Teaching (SECT) questionnaire. Students in the VU program completed the OCTQ for each of the clinical educators they worked with during semester 2, 2017. Results Completed OCTQ and SECT were received from 37 clinical educators. These were matched with 308 student evaluations (mean of 6 student ratings per educator). Three possible educator cohorts were identified: a) high clinical eductor self-OCTQ with low student evaluation; b) low clinical educator self-evaluation and high student evaluations; and, c) no difference between self- and student evaulations. Clinical educators in the first cohort demonstrated significantly higher SECT subscale scores (effect size >0.42) than their colleagues. Age, gender, teaching qualification, and years practicing or years as a clinical educator were not associated with clinical educator OCTQ scores or the SECT subscales. Conclusions Targeted professional development directed towards fostering self-efficacy may provide an avenue for engaging those clinical educators whose self-efficacy is low and/or those who did not receive high student evaluations. Given there is no gold standard measure of clinical teaching quality, educators should engage with multiple sources of feedback to benchmark their current performance level, and identify opportunities to improve. Student and self-evaluations using the OCTQ and evaluation of self-efficacy using the SECT, are useful tools for inclusion in a whole-of-system approach to evaluation of the clinical learning environment.

Online Course-Ratings and the Personnel Evaluation Standards

2006 ◽  
pp. 61-75
Author(s):  
Susan J. Clark ◽  
Christian M. Reiner ◽  
Trav D. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Online Course ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Personnel Evaluation ◽  
Student Evaluations Of Teaching ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Evaluation Standards ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Online Evaluation ◽  
Successes And Challenges

Many institutions of higher education are considering the possibility of conducting student evaluations of teaching (course-ratings) online. Some campuses have already implemented online evaluation systems that collect, process, and report ratings data electronically. Information on the successes and challenges of these systems is beginning to emerge. This chapter outlines some of the most salient advantages and challenges of online student evaluations of teaching within the context of how they relate to The Personnel Evaluation Standards set forth by the Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation (JCSEE, 1988). The authors also provide suggestions for successful implementation of online evaluation systems.

Are online student evaluations of faculty influenced by the timing of evaluations?

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 213-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
John A. McNulty ◽  
Gregory Gruener ◽  
Arcot Chandrasekhar ◽  
Baltazar Espiritu ◽  
Amy Hoyt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Medical Curriculum ◽  
Student Evaluations ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Online Student ◽  
Faculty Evaluations ◽  
Faculty Ratings ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Web Based System ◽  
Student’S T Test

Student evaluations of faculty are important components of the medical curriculum and faculty development. To improve the effectiveness and timeliness of student evaluations of faculty in the physiology course, we investigated whether evaluations submitted during the course differed from those submitted after completion of the course. A secure web-based system was developed to collect student evaluations that included numerical rankings ( 1–5) of faculty performance and a section for comments. The grades that students received in the course were added to the data, which were sorted according to the time of submission of the evaluations and analyzed by Pearson's correlation and Student's t-test. Only 26% of students elected to submit evaluations before completion of the course, and the average faculty ratings of these evaluations were highly correlated [ r( 14 ) = 0.91] with the evaluations submitted after completion of the course. Faculty evaluations were also significantly correlated with the previous year [ r( 14 ) = 0.88]. Concurrent evaluators provided more comments that were statistically longer and subjectively scored as more “substantive.” Students who submitted their evaluations during the course and who included comments had significantly higher final grades in the course. In conclusion, the numeric ratings that faculty received were not influenced by the timing of student evaluations. However, students who submitted early evaluations tended to be more engaged as evidenced by their more substantive comments and their better performance on exams. The consistency of faculty evaluations from year to year and concurrent versus at the end of the course suggest that faculty tend not to make significant adjustments to student evaluations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document