scholarly journals A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching

2018 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Ching
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Psychological Contract ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Narrative Literature Review ◽  
Teaching Learning

PurposeCompetition among higher education institutions has pushed universities to expand their competitive advantages. Based on the assumption that the core functions of universities are academic, understanding the teaching–learning process with the help of student evaluation of teaching (SET) would seem to be a logical solution in increasing competitiveness. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approachThe current paper presents a narrative literature review examining how SETs work within the concept of service marketing, focusing specifically on the search, experience, and credence qualities of the provider. A review of the various factors that affect the collection of SETs is also included.FindingsRelevant findings show the influence of students’ prior expectations on SET ratings. Therefore, teachers are advised to establish a psychological contract with the students at the start of the semester. Such an agreement should be negotiated, setting out the potential benefits of undertaking the course and a clear definition of acceptable performance within the class. Moreover, connections should be made between courses and subjects in order to provide an overall view of the entire program together with future career pathways.Originality/valueGiven the complex factors affecting SETs and the antecedents involved, there appears to be no single perfect tool to adequately reflect what is happening in the classroom. As different SETs may be needed for different courses and subjects, options such as faculty self-evaluation and peer-evaluation might be considered to augment current SETs.

scholarly journals Factors affecting the student evaluation of teaching scores: evidence from panel data estimation

2012 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eduardo de Carvalho Andrade ◽  
Bruno de Paula Rocha
Keyword(s):  
Training Programs ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Random Effects Model ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Factors Affecting ◽  
Panel Data Estimation ◽  
Quality Of Teaching ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Data Estimation

We use a random-effects model to find the factors that affect the student evaluation of teaching (SET) scores. Dataset covers 6 semesters, 496 undergraduate courses related to 101 instructors and 89 disciplines. Our empirical findings are: (i) the class size affects negatively the SET score; (ii) instructors with more experience are better evaluated, but these gains reduce over time; (iii) participating in training programs, designed to improve the quality of teaching, did not increase the SET scores; (iv) instructors seem to be able to marginally 'buy' a better evaluation by inflating students' grade. Finally, there are significant changes in the rankings when we adjust the SET score to eliminate the effects of variables beyond instructors' control. Despite these changes, they are not statistically significant.

Evaluating the validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SET) in India

2015 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 623-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjiv Mittal ◽  
Rajat Gera ◽  
Dharminder Kumar Batra
Keyword(s):  
Teaching Effectiveness ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Emerging Market ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Indian Students

Purpose – There is a debate in literature about the generalizability of the structure and the validity of the measures of Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness (SET). This debate spans the dimensionality and validity of the construct, and the use of the measure for summative and formative purposes of teachers valuation and feedback. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the debate on the aforementioned issues. Specifically the paper tests the relationship of teacher’s “charisma” trait with a measure of SET consisting of the two dimensions of “lecturer ability” and “module attributes.” The market characteristics of the paper are those of an emerging market and cross-cultural context with a specific reference to India. Design/methodology/approach – In this study, a two-dimensional scale of SET, which was originally developed by Shevlin et al. (2000) in their study in the UK, was empirically tested with Indian students and modified. Empirical data were collected from Indian students pursuing their MBA program in a north Indian university and statistical testing using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses was undertaken. The proposed relationship of a teacher’s “charisma” trait was tested as a reflective construct comprising of the two dimensions of SET with the help of the software package Amos ver 4.0. Findings – The results indicate that the measure of SET is influenced by the teacher’s “Charisma” (trait), thus providing evidence of a halo effect. This raises the issue of validity of SET as an instrument for measuring teaching effectiveness (TE). The results provide support to the hypothesis that structure of SET is multidimensional along with the need for adapting the instrument in diverse cultural and market contexts. Originality/value – This study contributes to the debate on the validity, structure and use of SET as an instrument for measuring TE in a developing market with cross-cultural implications such as India.

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