A Validation Study of the Faculty and Course Evaluation (Face) Instrument

Abstract

Consistent with the distinction between student ratings (ratings assigned) and class ratals (ratings received), various properties of the FACE Instrument scales were investigated. Preliminary analyses revealed that the scales were composed of appropriate items and that the scales possessed high reliabilities. The distinction between student rating scales and class ratal scales was empirically verified. Similar factorial compositions were obtained for both sets of scales. Although for the student rating scales some support was found for convergent and discriminant validity, for the class ratal scales equivocal support for convergent validity and no support for discriminant validity were obtained.

A review of the research on student evaluation and a report on the effect of different sets of instructions on student course and instructor evaluation

“…Some have found near zero relationships (Aleamoni and Thomas, 1977;Bendig, 1953a;Blum, 1936;Cohen and Humphreys, 1960;Doyle and Whitely, 1974;Eckert, 1950;Elliott, 1950;Garverick and Carter, 1962;Greenwood et al, 1976;Guthrie, 1949Guthrie, , 1954Heilman and Armentrout, 1936;Hudelson, 1951;Remmers, 1928Remmers, , 1930Remmers, , 1939Remmers, , 1960Russell, 1951;Spencer and Levitz, 1966;Treffinger and Feldhusen, 1970;Voeks and French, 1960;Walker, 1969). In contrast to these studies other investigators have found significant positive relationships (Aleamoni and Spencer, 1973;Aleamoni and Thomas, 1977;Anikeef, 1953;Barnoski and Sockloff, 1976;Bausell and Magoon, 1972;Caffrey, 1969;Centra and Linn, 1976;Echandia, 1964;Garverick and Carter, 1962;Hillery and Yuk, 1974;Holmes, 1971;Hudelson, 1951;Kennedy, 1975;Kooker, 1968;Rayder, 1968;Rosenshine et al, 1973;Rubenstein and Mitchell, 1970;Russell and Bendig, 1953;Schuh and Crivelli, 1973...…”

The Relative Influence of Published Teaching Evaluations and Other Instructor Attributes on Course Choice

“…This emphasis on relevance is understandable, since many students begin the 2-year business program in their junior year, at a time when they are becoming more serious about the courses they take and how well a course prepares them for the career they envision. Babad, Darley, and Kaplowitz (1999) reported a similar developmental trend across all majors, that is, course worth is a more important Marks (2000); Radmacher and Martin (2001); Williams and Ceci (1997); Wilson (1998) Course workload/difficulty Strong positive or negative influence; workload inversely related to grading leniency and expected grade Bacon and Novotny (2002); D' Apollonia and Abrami (1997); Greenwald and Gillmore (1997); Marks (2000); Marsh and Roche (1997) Grading leniency Strong positive influence (but may be moderated by other factors such as workload, undergrade/ graduate status, and motivation level) Bacon and Novotny (2002); Greenwald and Gillmore (1997); Marsh and Roche (1997); McKeachie (1997) Course worth/relevance Strong positive influence Bacon and Novotny (2002); Feldman (1989); Marsh and Bailey (1993) Expected grade Strong positive influence Archibold (1998); Barnoski and Sockloff (1976); Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) Pedagogical style Mixed findings but may have moderate influence on SET Davis, Shekhar, and Van Auken (2000) Sex of instructor Weak influence (female students rated lower than male students) Feldman (1992); Freeman (1994); Theall and Franklin (2001) Rank and experience of instructor Moderate positive or negative influence Clayson (1999); Marsh and Hocevar (1991); Pohlmann (1975) Class size Weak negative influence Avi-Itzhak (1982); Braskamp and Ory (1994); Mc...…”

Expected grade covariation with student ratings of instruction: Individual versus class effects.

“…While the experimental research indicates that the strength of the grades bias may be moderate, correlational studies have reported widely inconsistent grades-rating relationships. Some report positive relationships (Aleamoni & Spencer, 1973;Barnoski & Sockloff, 1976;Bendig, 1953;Blass, 1974;Brandenburg, Slinde, & Batista, 1977;Brown, 1976;Frey, 1973Frey, , 1976Frey, Leonard, & Beatty, 1975;Garverick & Carter, Measure of grades; additional information Aleamoni & Spencer (1973) Barnoski & Sockloff (1976) Bendig (1953) Blass ( 1974) Elliott (1950) Endo & Della-Piana (1976) Frey (1976) Freyetal. (1975) Garverick & Carter (1962) Hocking (1976 Holmes ( 1971) Kelley(1972) Kovacs & Kapel (1976) Miller ( 1972) Petty (1975) Pratt & Pratt (1976) Remmers (1928) Russell & Bendig (1953) Schuh&Crivelli( 1973) Schwab (1975)…”