Course evaluation and attitudes toward college teaching

Abstract

Prior research suggests that attitudes may be one category of personal (student) variables that students bring to the task of evaluating college courses and their instructors. In a previous study, attitudes toward college teaching, in general, and the perceived progessivism of instructors, in particular, were associated with students' evaluations of courses. Perceived attitudes were a kind of evaluation. The results of the study raised the question as to when the attitude evaluation relation was first formed in the course of a semester and whether a causal order between them could be established. The present study, using a repeated-measures design, replicated the major findings of the previous study on a cross-section of University of Haifa students attending 22 courses. While there is no clear evidence for the priority of either attitudes or evaluation, the findings indicate that their association is formed early in the course, with some further consolidation later on. Both attitudes and evaluations are remarkably stable during the course. In view of these findings it is suggested that classroom evaluations might be moved back to one of the first meetings of the course to allow for feedback and changes in the instructor's presentation. Moreover, perceived attitude measures could be developed into an indirect measure of teacher performance.

Students as Learners and Teachers: Taking Responsibility, Transforming Education, and Redefining Accountability

“…Gathering student feedback at the midpoint can help faculty members gain access to the student perspective and, if they choose to share student feedback with the class, it can promote “two‐way communication with learners” and facilitate “open discussions about course goals and the teaching‐learning process” (Diamond, 2004, p. 226) in which students feel “empowered to help design their own educational process” (Keutzer, 1993, p. 239). Furthermore, gathering and discussing student feedback allows for the possibility that concerns might be addressed and changes made within the same term (Caulfield, 2007; Clark & Redmond, 1982; Diamond, 2004; Hofman & Kremer, 1983; Keutzer, 1993) as well as for future classes. About his experience of gathering midcourse feedback for the first time in his course, one faculty member who worked with a student consultant through SaLT said, “ ‘[Having a student gather feedback on the class and share it with me] gave me confidence that [the feedback] was thorough and trustworthy, unlike end‐of‐the‐semester course evaluations’ ” (Cook‐Sather, 2009a, p. 233).…”

Teaching self-criticism and peer-critique skills to engineering students through a temporal survey-based program

“…In both cases, attitude was the dimension that experienced the lowest variations over time. Attitude is more properly assessed with experience and objectivity (Choi and Kim, 2006) and any changes may not be properly perceived in a study within a relatively short time scale (Hofman and Kremer, 1983). It was therefore thought that the students never fully appreciated the temporal changes to attitude in this research.…”

Two decades of higher education

“…There is a high level of activity in this field of study and especially in relation to designing systems capable of identifying and assisting those whose patterns of learning are not conventional (Parsons and Meyer 1990). What Rutherford (1982) calls the 'revitalisation' of teaching involves ascertaining what students say about the teaching they receive (Feldens 1986;Jones 1981) and course evaluation (Hofman 1983). The assessment of teaching in higher education (Johnson 1975) has wider implications for the faculty concerned with regard to professional development and career advancement.…”