This article provides an extensive overview of the recent literature on student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education. The review is based on the SET meta-validation model, drawing upon research reports published in peer-reviewed journals since 2000. Through the lens of validity, we consider both the more traditional research themes in the field of SET (i.e., the dimensionality debate, the 'bias' question, and questionnaire design) and some recent trends in SET research, such as online SET and bias investigations into additional teacher personal characteristics. The review provides a clear idea of the state of the art with regard to research on SET, thus allowing researchers to formulate suggestions for future research. It is argued that SET remains a current yet delicate topic in higher education, as well as in education research. Many stakeholders are not convinced of the usefulness and validity of SET for both formative and summative purposes. Research on SET has thus far failed to provide clear answers to several critical questions concerning the validity of SET.

The use of student evaluation of teaching (SET) to evaluate and improve teaching is widespread amongst institutions of higher education. Many authors have searched for a conclusive understanding about the influence of student, course, and teacher characteristics on SET. One hotly debated discussion concerns the interpretation of the positive and statistically significant relationship that has been found between course grades and SET scores. In addition to reviewing the literature, the main purpose of the present study is to examine the influence of course grades and other characteristics of students, courses, and teachers on SET. Data from 1244 evaluations were collected using the SET-37 instrument and analyzed by means of cross-classified multilevel models. The results show positive significant relationships between course grades, class attendance, the examination period in which students receive their highest course grades, and the SET score. These relationships, however, are subject to different interpretations. Future research should focus on providing a definitive and empirically supported interpretation for these relationships. In the absence of such an interpretation, it will remain unclear whether these relationships offer proof of the validity of SET or whether they are a biasing factor.

No abstract