Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of teaching in an uncontrolled setting

Nowell, Clifford; Gale, Lewis R.; Handley, Bruce

doi:10.1080/02602930902862875

Cited by 56 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The general consensus is that, while the electronic administration method almost invariably results in lower response rates, its impact on results is non existent or minimal (Ardalan et al 2007;Avery et al 2006;Dommeyer et al 2004;Dresel and Tinsner 2008;Johnston 2003;Layne et al 1999;Liegle and McDonald 2005;Perrett 2011;Stowell et al 2011;Winer and Sehgal 2006). However, some recent conflicting evidence has also been presented (Morrison 2011;Nowell et al 2010) that reports lower average SET ratings from evaluations conducted online. As a result, these authors argue that moving to online evaluation is not overly problematic, yet it is not comparable to in-class administration and as a result, institutions should choose one method or the other.…”

Section: The Reliability Challenge Of Online Student Evaluations Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online student evaluations of teaching: what are we sacrificing for the affordances of technology?

Rísquez

Vaughan

Murphy

2014

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the context of increased emphasis on quality assurance of teaching, it is crucial that student evaluation of teaching (SET) methods are both reliable and workable in practice. Especially, online SET tends to raise criticisms with those most reactive to mechanisms of teaching accountability. However, most studies have been conducted with convenience, small and cross-sectional samples. Longitudinal studies are rare, as comparison studies on SET methodological approaches are generally pilot studies followed shortly after by implementation. The investigation presented here significantly contributes to the debate by examining the impact of the online administration method of SET on a very large longitudinal sample at course level. The study explores the impact of the administration method of student evaluations of teaching (paper based in-class versus off-class online collection) on scores with a longitudinal sample of over 63,000 student responses collected over a total period of ten years. Having adjusted for the confounding effect of class size, faculty, year of evaluation, years of teaching experience and student performance, it is observed that the actual effect of the administration method exists, but is insignificant.

show abstract

Section: The Reliability Challenge Of Online Student Evaluations Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Online student evaluations of teaching: what are we sacrificing for the affordances of technology?

Rísquez

Vaughan

Murphy

2014

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Desde hace ya años las universidades se preocupan por conocer la percepción de los estudiantes en distintos aspectos, como por ejemplo la docencia, para ello se diseñan y desarrollan escalas de evaluación (Spooren, Brockx y Mortelmans, 2013;Nowell, Gale y Handley, 2010). Recientemente, en el estudio de Bloxham (2012) se afi rma que, si bien la evaluación del profesorado por parte de los estudiantes es común en la mayoría de universidades, aún es necesaria una mayor utilización de toda la información recogida para la mejora de la enseñanza, alegando que la evaluación del profesorado no puede ser un fi n en sí mismo, sino que debe conducir a cambios y mejoras en la enseñanza y en el aprendizaje de los estudiantes.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

University Student Satisfaction with Tutoring Designing and Validation of an Evaluation Instrument

Cusó

Clares

Juárez

2015

Estudios sobre Educación

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Resumen: La tutoría universitaria se considera un factor de calidad y una exigencia del EEES. Este trabajo presenta el diseño y validación de una escala de satisfacción con la tutoría y el grado de satisfacción en una muestra de estudiantes (n=976), en un estudio descriptivo y transversal. El análisis factorial es satisfactorio, la escala queda compuesta por 22 ítems y dos sub-escalas que explican el 57.87% de la varianza. La fi abilidad del instrumento (α=.973) y de las sub-escalas (α=.967 y α=.944) es alta. Los resultados muestran una mayor satisfacción con el tutor que con la organización y contenidos de la tutoría.Palabras clave: tutoría universitaria; calidad; satisfacción; evaluación docente.Abstract: University tutoring is considered as a quality factor and a requirement of the EHEA. Thus this paper presents the construction and validating process of a scale of satisfaction with it and the level of satisfaction in a sample of students (n=976) in a cross and descriptive study. Factor analysis is satisfying, scale is composed of a total of 22 items and two sub-scales explaining 57.87% of the variance. Instrument reliability level (α=.973) and both sub-scales (α=.967 y α=.944) are considered high. Results show greater satisfaction with the tutor than with the organization and content of mentoring.

show abstract

“…It ranges from the power of feedback in teaching and learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007;Tucker, 2013a), to the diversity of the experience of various cohorts of students (Brown, 2011;Grebennikov & Shah, 2012;James et al 2010;Tucker, 2013b), the importance of the first year experience (James et al 2010;Kift et al 2010), the need for effective student engagement (Coates, 2005;Krause & Coates, 2008), and the positive correlation between satisfaction, student retention (Scott, 2006) and grades (Tucker et al 2012). Further there is a link between student satisfaction and student feedback, such that there are good predictors of both high and low satisfaction (Grebennikov & Skaines, 2009;Scott, 2006;Kane et al, 2008) and the strategies deployed to improve student satisfaction (Grebennikov & Shah, 2013a;Leckey & Neill, 2001;Nelson, Smith, & Clarke, 2012;Pitkethly & Prosser, 2001); and methodology and its impact on response rates and satisfaction (Moskal et al 2015;Bennett & Nair, 2010;Dommeyer et al 2004;Nair, Adams, Ferraiuolo, & Curtis, 2009;Nowell et al 2010;Stowell et al 2011;).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Closing the loop on student feedback: the case of Australian and Scottish universities

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Universities have a long history of collecting student feedback using surveys and other mechanisms. The last decade has witnessed a significant shift in how student feedback is systematically collected, analysed, reported, and used by governments and institutions. This shift is due to a number of factors, including changes in government policy related to quality assurance, and the increased use of the results by various stakeholders such as governments, institutions, and potential students and employers. The collection, analysis and reporting of results are systematically carried out in many institutions worldwide. However, how to use student feedback to effectively improve student learning experience remains an issue to be addressed. This paper will contribute to this debate by comparing how Australian and Scottish universities use student feedback results to inform improvements. Based on thematic analysis of external quality audit reports of all Australian and Scottish universities, this paper suggests that universities have systematic processes to collect student feedback using a range of mechanisms, but limited work is done to use the data to inform improvements. This paper argues the need for universities to genuinely listen to student voice by facilitating partnership between students and institutions to act on their feedback as part of quality assurance.

show abstract

Assessing faculty performance using student evaluations of teaching in an uncontrolled setting

Cited by 56 publications

References 13 publications

Online student evaluations of teaching: what are we sacrificing for the affordances of technology?

Online student evaluations of teaching: what are we sacrificing for the affordances of technology?

University Student Satisfaction with Tutoring Designing and Validation of an Evaluation Instrument

Closing the loop on student feedback: the case of Australian and Scottish universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About