Effects of anonymity and retaliatory potential on student evaluations of faculty performance

Stone, Eugene F.; Spool, Mark D.; Rabinowitz, Samuel

doi:10.1007/bf00992176

Cited by 27 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research studies have indicated that student ratings are slightly higher if the instructor remains in the room during text administration (Feldman, 1979), when students sign their rating forms (Stone, Spool, and Rabinowitz, 1977;Feldman, 1979), or when students are told how the ratings will be used for personnel decisions (Centra, 1976;Feldman, 1979;Overall and Marsh, 1979). What accounts for the rating differences?…”

Section: Examining the Validation Of Student Ratings And The New Valimentioning

confidence: 94%

How Do Student Ratings Measure Up to a New Validity Framework?

Ory

Ryan

2001

New Drctns for Instit Rsrch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examine student ratings within a new framework that emphasizes six distinct aspects of validity : content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external, and consequential. They It is fitting that as the new millennium arrives, a major revision of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Psychological Association, 1985) has been completed and is the subject of much debate and dialogue. It reflects some changes in how the assessment community thinks about the concept of validity. The literature responsible for this shift began with Messick' s benchmark chapter on validity in the third edition of Educational Measurement (1989) and continued with Shepard' s article in the Review of Educational Research (1993) and articles on the consequences of assessment by Lane, Parke, and Stone, 1998;Linn, 1998;Reckase, 1998;Yen, 1998;Cronbach, 1989; and Moss, 1992, 1996. How validation efforts should be conducted and how assessment results are used is shifting as a consequence of this body of work.What are the implications of this work for student ratings of instruction? We take up this fundamental question in this chapter. We begin this effort by defining the concepts that are the basis for a new unified concept of validity. We briefly summarize the past validity research on student ratings using the traditional validity framework. Based on the concepts presented, we then do a critical analysis of student ratings research using the new validation framework. Synthesizing the results of the analysis, we propose an initial agenda for future student ratings' validation efforts.

show abstract

Section: Examining the Validation Of Student Ratings And The New Valimentioning

confidence: 94%

How Do Student Ratings Measure Up to a New Validity Framework?

Ory

Ryan

2001

New Drctns for Instit Rsrch

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, several studies suggest that increased identifiablity increases concerns about the repercussion of actions and inhibits behavior. For instance, group members are more critical of others when anonymous, and can be more aggressive (Rogers & Ketchen, 1979; Stone, Spool, & Rabinowitz, 1977). Thus, it is predicted that if the deviant is able to identify the persuader this should act as an inhibitor of persuasion as it increases the potential cost of intervening.…”

Section: Potential Cost Of Interventionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of cost, normative support, and issue importance on motivation to persuade in-group deviants.

Frings¹,

Abrams²,

Moura³

et al. 2010

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Persuading in-group deviants to become normative may carry costs that outweigh the advantages of group consensus. This study investigates the effects of potential cost, normative support, and issue importance on group members' efforts to change the views of in-group deviants (N ϭ 115). In line with previous research into bystander intervention, the authors show that when costs are low, high levels of either importance or normative support are sufficient to increase persuasion action tendency. When costs are higher, higher levels of both issue importance and normative support are necessary to increase persuasion action tendency. In addition, content analysis of messages sent to in-group deviants show that high potential costs and low levels of issue importance reduce the proportion of messages sent that are persuasive. These results are discussed in terms of theories of approach/avoidance and social identity.

show abstract

“…When classroom evaluation data are to be used exclusively for feedback purposes, the need for anonymity doesn't appear to be a critical factor (Stone, Rabinowitz & Spool, 1977). This use of names permits the inclusion of a performance dimension.…”

Section: Teaching Of Psychologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Students were asked to sign their evaluations and assured that their ratings would not influence their grade. This procedure was based on the work of Stone, Rabinowitz and Spool (1977) who reported a negligible effect of student anonymity on the rating of faculty performance. Stone, et al reported no significant differences between mean performance ratings of instructors rated by students guaranteed anonymity and those that were not.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Performance and the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Phye

1984

Teaching of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of anonymity and retaliatory potential on student evaluations of faculty performance

Cited by 27 publications

References 35 publications

How Do Student Ratings Measure Up to a New Validity Framework?

How Do Student Ratings Measure Up to a New Validity Framework?

The effects of cost, normative support, and issue importance on motivation to persuade in-group deviants.

Student Performance and the Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About