scholarly journals Validation of a Short Scale for Student Evaluation of Teaching Ratings in a Polytechnic Higher Education Institution

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarquino Sánchez ◽  
Jaime León ◽  
Raquel Gilar-Corbi ◽  
Juan-Luis Castejón

The general purpose of this work is 2-fold, to validate scales and to present the methodological procedure to reduce these scales to validate a rating scale for the student evaluation of teaching in the context of a Polytechnic Higher Education Institution. We explored the relationship between the long and short versions of the scale; examine their invariance in relation to relevant variables such as gender. Data were obtained from a sample of 6,110 students enrolled in a polytechnic higher education institution, most of whom were male. Data analysis included descriptive analysis, intraclass correlation, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), confirmatory factorial analysis, correlations between the short and long form corrected for the shared error variance, gender measurement invariance, reliability using congeneric correlated factors, and correlations with academic achievement for the class as unit with an analysis following a multisection design. Results showed four highly correlated factors that do not exclude a general factor, with an excellent fit to data; configural, metric, and scalar gender measurement invariance; high reliability for both the long and short scale and subscales; high short and long-form scale correlations; and moderate but significant correlations between the long and short versions of the scales with academic performance, with individual and aggregate data collected from classes or sections. To conclude, this work shows the possibility of developing student evaluation of teaching scales with a short form scale, which maintains the same high reliability and validity indexes as the longer scale.

Author(s):  
Bob Uttl

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