Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions and biasing factors

Al‐Issa, Ahmad; Sulieman, Hana

doi:10.1108/09684880710773183

Cited by 53 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other side, however, are students who take a class only because it meets a requirement or because it was offered at a favourable time." This is supported with findings reported by Hobson and Talbot (2001) and Al-Issa & Sulieman (2007). Moreover, another teacher described the non-instructional factors as "dislike for teachers, lack of interest in the course, unwillingness to give a productive feedback, grades, and, most importantly, comparison between teachers."…”

supporting

confidence: 83%

Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Ali¹,

Ajmi²

2013

HES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 83%

Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Ali¹,

Ajmi²

2013

HES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This can indicate a certain degree of reliability in the use of these feedback. For this and other reasons, students' ratings should be considered an essential and important component of academic teaching performance evaluation of lecturers in various courses (Al-Issa & Sulieman, 2007;Wright & Palmer, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teaching Quality Evaluation: Online vs. Manually, Facts and Myths

Salman

2017

JITE:IIP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This study aimed to examine whether there is a difference between manual feedback and online feedback with regard to feedback quality, respondents’ percentage, reliability and the amount of verbal comments written by students. Background: The quality of teaching is an important component of academic work. There are various methods for testing the quality of teaching; one of these methods is through students’ feedback. Methodology: This study used a quantitative approach, including the quantification of qualitative verbal data collected through an open question in the questionnaire. A sample of 180 courses was randomly chosen, 90 courses were evaluated manually and 90 were evaluated online. The number of students ranges from 7 to 60 students per course. In total 4678 students participated in the study. Contribution: The findings show that there is almost an identical pattern of feedback of manual and online course teaching evaluation. These findings encourage a continued use of this evaluation method. Findings: No significant differences were found between manual feedback and online feedback in the students’ evaluation of the lecturer/course. The percentage of respondents was significantly higher in the manual feedback than in the online feedback. The number of qualitative comments was significantly greater in the online feedback than in the manual feedback. Impact on Society: The findings of this study refute the claims with regard to the unreliability of an online teaching evaluation. These findings reflect the advantages of using online feedback, such as cost savings, granting more time to students in order to provide feedback, and reducing disturbance during lectures. Future Research: The gender aspect was not taken into account in the study. Therefore, we recommend conducting a follow-up study that will examine gender differences in directions of- difference between male and female lecturers, and differences between male and female students in teaching evaluation.

show abstract

“…One key exception (Yorke, 2009) considers the use -or non-use -of negatively stated items in the survey and highlights the importance of cultural differences in the interpretation of such items. Students' cultural and linguistic backgrounds have also been shown to influence their responses to a teaching evaluation questionnaire (Al-Issa and Sulieman, 2007). Since UK universities attract students from a range of cultures and nationalities some items in the NSS may be interpreted differently by these groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The meaning of prompt feedback and other student perceptions of feedback: should National Student Survey scores be taken at face value?

Mendes

Thomas

Cleaver

2011

Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regardless of the institution or discipline, the UK's National Student Survey (NSS)has consistently highlighted that the level of student satisfaction about the feedback they receive is notably lower than for other aspects of their learning experience. This study explored how students understand concepts and practices rated through NSS questions evaluating feedback practices in higher education. Drawing on questionnaires completed by first, third and fourth year Chemical Engineering students, the study calls into particular question the reliability of NSS data on promptness of feedback. In conclusion, it calls for greater attention to be paid at institutional level to the identification and management of students' perceptions and expectations of the process, content and outcomes of feedback.

show abstract

Student evaluations of teaching: perceptions and biasing factors

Cited by 53 publications

References 25 publications

Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Exploring Non-Instructional Factors in Student Evaluations

Teaching Quality Evaluation: Online vs. Manually, Facts and Myths

The meaning of prompt feedback and other student perceptions of feedback: should National Student Survey scores be taken at face value?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About