End-of-Course Evaluations as Indicators of Student Learning and Instructor Effectiveness

Structural equation modeling is used to examine the nomological relationships between the five latent constructs that comprise the Student Instructional Rating System (SIRS), a widely used student evaluation of instructor form. Our results indicate that input factors, that is, course organization and student-instructor interaction, influence the endogenous factors, that is, instructor involvement and student interest, in a positive manner. However, the factor—course demands affects these endogenous factors in a negative manner. In addition, course demands is also negatively associated with the other two input factors. Despite their apparent intuitive appeal, users of student evaluation forms often ignore these relationships. The authors hope that users of student evaluation forms take these relationships between the latent constructs into account when using the results.

Section: Conceptual Modelmentioning

confidence: 67%

Student Evaluation of Instructor: A Nomological Investigation Using Structural Equation Modeling

Paswan

Young

2002

“…Standardized learning measures are relatively rare and, to be useful, standardized tests would need to be appropriate both for the subject matter and the academic level of any given course. The one notable exception is the use of the Test of Understanding in College Economics (TUCE) in economic SET studies (Marlin & Niss, 1980;Soper, 1973).…”

Section: Methodological Solutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Student Evaluations of Teaching: Are They Related to What Students Learn?

Clayson

2008

337

259

Although the student evaluation of teaching has been extensively researched, no general consensus has been reached about the validity of the process. One contentious issue has been the relationship between the evaluations and learning. If good instruction increases the amount of learning that takes place, then learning and the evaluations should be validly related to each other. A review of the literature shows that attempts to find such a nomological relationship has been complicated by practice, methodology, and interpretation. A meta-analysis of the literature shows that a small average relationship exists between learning and the evaluations but that the association is situational and not applicable to all teachers, academic disciplines, or levels of instruction. It is concluded that the more objectively learning is measured, the less likely it is to be related to the evaluations.

“…As an example, one attempt to establish validity has been the general assumption that students will "learn" more from a "good" instructor. Many researchers have reported finding a positive relationship between learning and student ratings of instructors (Baird 1987;Lundsten 1986;Marlin and Niss 1980). Nevertheless, prior to the mid-1970s, about half of previous studies had found no correlation or a negative correlation between some measure of learning and the evaluations (Sullivan and Skanes 1974).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Students’ Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: Some Implications of Stability

Clayson

1999

Previous research has indicated that the mean scores of student evaluation of teaching effectiveness do not change with experience. If this is true, whatever aspects of effective instruction the instruments are measuring do not change in the students’ perception. University students were asked to indicate what instructional characteristics changed or stayed the same as an instructor gained more and more experience. Instructor structural-related factors such as organization, knowledge, fairness, and even the ability of the students to learn were perceived as improving over time. Personalityrelated factors were perceived as stable. Implications of these findings are discussed.