The research on student ratings of instruction, while voluminous, has had minimal focus on the perceptions of the students who do the ratings. The current study explored student perspectives on course and teacher ratings as well as some issues related to teaching effectiveness and faculty roles. It was found that students are generally willing to do evaluations and to provide feedback, and have no particular fear of repercussions. However, they have little con dence that faculty or administrators pay attention to the results, and do not even consult the ratings themselves. The students view teaching and advising as the most important roles that should be played by faculty, yet project that faculty, while also viewing teaching as the most important, would rank research above the more student-interactive advising. Canonical correlations among various scales reveal a strong emphasis on such issues of the importance of faculty respect for student views.Student ratings of instruction have been in extensive use on college campuses for several decades (e.g. Marsh, 1987;Seldin, 1993), and, despite some inconsistencies and unresolved issues, have been relatively well accepted by researchers and practitioners in the eld. The vast research literature has primarily focused on such areas as their reliability, validity, relationships to other variables, and potentially biasing factors, leading to such conclusions as those by Marsh and Bailey (1993), who held that for well-constructed instruments, such ratings are: (a) multidimensional; (b) reliable and stable; (c) primarily a function of the instructor who teaches a course rather than of the course that is taught; (d) relatively valid against a variety of indicators of effective teaching; [and] (e) relatively unaffected by a variety of variables hypothesized as potential biases to the ratings. (p. 1) Among the plethora of studies are many that have uncovered various dimensions used as organising structures in the creation of instruments. Others have explored differences

No abstract

No abstract

Through case-writing pedagogy, an approach to case-method instruction, early intervention-early childhood leadership students examined interdisciplinary perspectives, reflected, and integrated new content. Students explored leadership theories and researched current issues and trends in early childhood mental health as they engaged in a collegial, reflective process. Furthermore, students identified issues or tensions from their work settings and developed problem-solving skills, including defining and reframing problems. The interdisciplinary leadership institute and the specific features of the case-writing pedagogy are described. Teaching outcomes are discussed, including course evaluation results and a descriptive case study. Changes in students' personal and professional beliefs; dispositions regarding reflective practice and mental health; and connections between theory, research, and practice are provided. Applications to other contexts are discussed.

No abstract