Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Abstract

The use of student ratings to measure instructors' teaching performance and effectiveness in tertiary education has been an important but controversial tool in the improvement of teaching quality during the past few decades. This is an attempt to explore non-instructional factors of student evaluations by discussing and reviewing relevant literature with regard to the most common non-instructional factors in student ratings. Moreover, semi-structured interviews were used with 14 college instructors. The findings show that most of the teachers support the use of student evaluations as a means of quality control and teaching improvement. However, the great majority of teachers expressed their concerns about the non-instructional factors which affect student ratings and make them meaningless. They reported that gender, time of evaluation, expected grades, nationality of the instructor, and other factors can affect student ratings. The study proposes some recommendations which might make student evaluation practices more useful and informative.Keywords: non-instructional factors, student evaluations, grading leniency, teaching effectiveness, grade inflation Background of the Study RationaleThe use of student ratings to measure instructors' teaching performance and effectiveness has been an important but controversial tool in the improvement of teaching quality during the past few decades (Spooren et al., 2007). However, most tertiary institutions rely on student ratings as an indicator of faculty teaching performance (Benton, 2011, p. 41). Empirical research has shown that there is a significant correlation between student evaluations of teaching (SETs) and student grades (Isely & Singh, 2005, p. 29). Student evaluations have a negative and a pernicious effect on teaching if they are not adjusted appropriately and accurately to measure teaching effectiveness (Arreola, 2007;Schneider, 2013). If student evaluations can be increased by giving higher grades, then they are a flawed instrument for evaluating teaching. Moreover, this process may contribute to the inflation of grades in higher education institutions if faculty members have an incentive to improve their evaluations and attract students (Krautmann & Sander, 1999). The findings of Krautmann and Sander (1999) indicated that grades affect student evaluations, and faculty have the ability to "buy" higher evaluations by lowering their grading standards (p. 61). Schneider (2013) claims that faculty at higher education institutions that place significant weight on student evaluations often report that they give out easy grades, avoid controversial material, and dumb down courses in order to get higher student evaluations (p. 122). He criticises student evaluations as a practice poisonous to the teaching environment, inaccurate, easily manipulated, and lacking psychometric sense, reliability, and validity. Furthermore, D'Apollonia and Abrami (1997, cited in Germain & Scanduran, n.d) claim that student evaluations are unsophisticated and provide little insig...

Faculty Perspectives on Underprepared Students

“…Since the questionnaire is designed to measure student satisfaction of the faculty member, and not the learning that transpired in the class, the student is therefore viewed as a customer rather than an actual student. The questionnaire is less of a measurement of what the student has actually learned in the course, and is nothing more than a customer satisfaction indicator (Ali & Ajmi, 2013). As students consider themselves as paying customers, they now expect professors to assign good grades regardless of the work content submitted (Ausbrooks et al, 2011).…”

“…Student evaluations are an integral part of how faculty are evaluated and influence changes to the curriculum and faculty performance (Hatfield & Coyle, 2013). Research suggests that grade inflation and coursework deflation are a result of a heavy reliance on student evaluations (Ali & Ajmi, 2013). Students who receive higher grades are usually happy and more apt to rate a faculty member in a more positive manner.…”

Student Evaluations of Teaching, Course and Student Characteristics at Andrews University

“…A review of the literature indicated that SET is an assessment, which takes the form of a survey that is completed by the student at the end of a course or a program. This survey asks the students to use their judgment to report their experiences regarding the effectiveness of the instructor or the quality of the course (Ali & Ajmi, 2013;Brown, 2008;Driscoll & Cadden, 2010;Hobson & Talbot, 2001;Lindahl & Unger, 2010;Oliver & Pookie, 2005;Smith, 2007;Tsai & Lin, 2012).…”

“…It is used by administrators and instructors to make important decisions regarding development of the course and the instruction (Al-Issa & Sulieman, 2007;Ali & Ajmi, 2013;Beuth et al, 2015;Driscoll & Cadden, 2010). Also, it is used by students to make better decisions regarding which course they want to take and to be aware of the course levels of difficulty before the registration process (Adams & Umbach, 2012;Ali & Ajmi, 2013;Atek, Salim, Ab Halim, Jusoh, & Yusuf, 2015;Beuth et al, 2015;Brockx, Spooren, & Mortelmans, 2011;Chulkov & Jason Van, 2012;Donnon, Delver, & Beran, 2010;Driscoll & Cadden, 2010;Fah, Yin & Osman, 2011). Furthermore, SET is considered an important tool that could have negative impacts on the development of teaching if it does not give accurate results (Ali & Ajmi, 2013).…”

“…Also, it is used by students to make better decisions regarding which course they want to take and to be aware of the course levels of difficulty before the registration process (Adams & Umbach, 2012;Ali & Ajmi, 2013;Atek, Salim, Ab Halim, Jusoh, & Yusuf, 2015;Beuth et al, 2015;Brockx, Spooren, & Mortelmans, 2011;Chulkov & Jason Van, 2012;Donnon, Delver, & Beran, 2010;Driscoll & Cadden, 2010;Fah, Yin & Osman, 2011). Furthermore, SET is considered an important tool that could have negative impacts on the development of teaching if it does not give accurate results (Ali & Ajmi, 2013). Additionally, institutional administrators use SET for accreditation purposes and to make decisions for the faculty promotion process (Terry, Heitner, Miller, & Hollis, 2017).…”