scholarly journals Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: Evidence from Hong Kong

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. 95
Author(s):  
Jang C. Jin
Keyword(s):  
Hong Kong ◽  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Mainland China ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Hong Kong Students ◽  
Class Average ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Teaching In Higher Education ◽  
Different Origins

This paper examines empirically the determinants of student evaluation of teaching (SET).  An empirical model was specified and estimated using the SET data collected in Hong Kong over six academic years.  A key finding is that three different origins of students had a differentiated impact on teaching evaluation.  In particular, students from mainland China appreciated and rated teaching favorably, and hence the more mainland talents in the class, the higher the class-average SET scores.  However, local Hong Kong students valued teaching and learning effectiveness unfavorably.  Exchange students from abroad also dropped the class-average SET scores, as well as class-average exam scores.  The results suggest that raw SET scores should be used with care if classes are unbalanced with a large group of atypical students who work less but blame instructors for everything.

scholarly journals Psychometric Properties of an Instrument Developed to Assess Students’ Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 656
Author(s):  
Mutasem M. Akour ◽  
Bashar K. Hammad
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Teaching Effectiveness ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Teaching In Higher Education

Student evaluation of teaching is a global predominant practice in higher education institutions. Therefore, a major university in Jordan developed a questionnaire for students’ use in evaluating their instructors’ teaching effectiveness.  Since student evaluation of teaching is an important process, the present study tried to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument. Item-total correlations showed acceptable internal consistency. In addition, a two-factor structure of the scale (teaching effectiveness and course attributes) was supported by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis from two independent samples. Convergent validity was supported by a moderate correlation coefficient between course averages of students’ ratings on the first factor and course averages of students’ final grades in each course. Finally, students’ responses on the factor that captures teaching effectiveness were found to have very high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96). However, this instrument lacks evidences of content validity and convergent validity. Therefore, it is important to be cautious in evaluating faculty members and making promotion decisions that is based solely on the scores obtained using this instrument. 

scholarly journals Conflict of interest explains the size of student evaluation of teaching and learning correlations in multisection studies: a meta-analysis

PeerJ ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. e7225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Uttl ◽  
Kelsey Cnudde ◽  
Carmela A. White
Keyword(s):  
Teaching And Learning ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Administrative Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Of Teaching ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Learning Correlations

We examined the associations between the size of student evaluation of teaching and learning (SET/learning) correlations and presence of several conflicts of interest (COIs) including corporate, administrative, evaluation unit, SET author, and funder interests. Our meta-analyses of SET/learning correlations reported by multisection studies show that researchers with a vested interest in finding large positive SET/learning correlations found, on average, large positive SET/learning correlations. In contrast, researchers with no identifiable COIs found that SET/learning correlations were zero or nearly zero. The largest SET/learning correlations were reported by authors with ties to SET selling corporations. Smaller but still substantial SET/learning correlations were reported by researchers with administrative assignments and by researchers in evaluation units/departments responsible for the administration of SET. Moreover, authors with the most significant COIs were publishing their studies primarily prior to 1981 whereas authors with no or less significant COIs were publishing their studies in 1981 or afterwards. Studies published prior to 1981 reported small but significant (r = .31) SET/learning correlations whereas studies published in 1981 and after reported near zero, non-significant SET/learning correlations (r = .06). The presence of COIs was associated with earlier publication date but also with smaller samples. Finally, whereas corporate, administrative, and evaluation unit authors nearly ceased publishing multisection studies on SET/learning correlations, authors from business and economics departments are now responsible for the substantial portion of newer, larger, and higher quality studies published in 1981 and after.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document