Predictors of student course evaluations.

Abstract

To Rod, my time as your graduate assistant was a tremendously rewarding experience but even more satisfying were the countless hours spent in your office conversing. It was during one of those conversations with Rod that the idea to explore student course evaluations was born.To Bob, I want to thank you for your support and for believing in the merit of this research, without which I would not have been able to conduct my study. I must also thank you and your research staff for dedicating innumerable hours to procuring and deidentifying data. Becky Patterson and Arnold Hook were tremendous assets and must be commended for their work in linking and mining the data that were analyzed in my study.To Joe, thank you for believing in me when I came to you as a student in counseling psychology and asked for admission into the ELFH program. Your extensive knowledge of student course evaluations, in particular the instrument used in the current study, was a great resource. concerning the instructor's teaching ability, preparation, grading, the course text and organization to which the student rates their agreement with the statement on a 5 point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 "Strongly Disagree", "Poor", or "Very Low" to 5 "Strongly Agree", "Excellent" or "Very High".In order to assess the relationship between the student, course, and instructor-level variables and the student course rating, hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) analyses were conducted. Most of the variability in student course rating was estimated at the student-level and this was reflected in the fact that most of the statistically significant relationships were found at the student-level. Prior student course interest and the amount v of student effort were statistically significant predictors of student course rating in all of the regression models. These findings were supported by previous studies and provide further evidence of such relationships.Additional HLM analyses were conducted to assess the relationship between student course rating and final course grade. Results of the HLM analyses indicated that student course rating was a statistically significant predictor of student course grade. This finding is consistent with the existing literature which posits a weak positive relationship between expected course grade and student course rating.vi

A Study of the Correlation of the Improvement of Teaching Evaluation Scores Based on Student Performance Grades

“…To achieve this purpose, we examined whether students' final grades and course fail rates are important predictors of teaching evaluation scores, analyzed the correlation between teaching evaluation scores and students' final grades, and explored the correlation between teaching evaluation scores and course fail rates. The results show that students' final grades and course fail rate are both statistical significant predictors of teaching evaluation scores, which is similar to the research results of Sauer (2012), but this can only explain 6.02% and 3.56% of the teaching evaluation scores variance.…”

“…Many researchers explored the correlation between teaching evaluation scores and students' grades. For example, Sauer (2012) explored the relationship between teaching evaluation scores and course grades, and found that teaching evaluation scores were a statistically significant predictor of students' course grades. Hoefer, Yurkiewicz, and Byrne (2012) analyzed the relationship between teaching evaluation results and students' grades.…”

Determinants of Accounting Student Evaluations of Teaching Scores

“…Eiszler (2002) argues that few topics in the popular and scholarly literature of higher education have attracted as much attention over prolonged periods as have the concern for the validity of student evaluations of college teaching effectiveness. While many researchers contend that SET scores obtained from students are valid and reliable measures of teaching effectiveness, there is still a large contingent that argue that the results from such instruments should not be relied upon for making personnel and tenure decisions (Sauer, 2012). Sproule (2000) and Bonitz (2011) argue that the use of SET for the purpose of formative and summative functions is controversial.…”

“…Badri et al (2006) empirically attempted to identify potential biasing factors in student evaluations and found that expected grade, actual grade, class size, course level, course timing, student gender and course subject significantly affect SET. Similarly, Sauer (2012) explored the predictors of student evaluations and revealed that student gender, ethnicity, age, prior interest in subject, course electivity and expected grade variables were statistically significant predictors of SET scores.…”

“…While many researchers contend that SET scores obtained from students are valid and reliable measures of teaching effectiveness, a large contingent still argues that the results from such instruments should not be relied upon for making personnel and tenure decisions (Sauer, 2012). For instance, using a sample from a Malaysian university, Liaw and Goh (2003) show that class size inappropriately influences students' judgments in teaching evaluations, suggesting that classes with small enrolment receive good teaching ratings, whereas large classes are associated with poor evaluation ratings.…”