Student Perception of End-of-Course Evaluations

Marlin, James W.

doi:10.1080/00221546.1987.11778294

Cited by 21 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…revenge) as SETs are used by universities for decisions about tenure, promotion, and annual raises. Many students are aware of this fact [Marlin, 1987] and those who are not, likely implicitly know that the professor will be hurt by receiving negative feedback.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students Aggress Against Professors in Reaction to Receiving Poor Grades: An Effect Moderated by Student Narcissism and Self‐Esteem

Vaillancourt

2012

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laboratory evidence about whether students' evaluations of teaching (SETs) are valid is lacking. Results from three (3) independent studies strongly confirm that "professors" who were generous with their grades were rewarded for their favor with higher SETs, while professors who were frugal were punished with lower SETs (Study 1, d = 1.51; Study 2, d = 1.59; Study 3, partial η(2) = .26). This result was found even when the feedback was manipulated to be more or less insulting (Study 3). Consistent with laboratory findings on direct aggression, results also indicated that, when participants were given a poorer feedback, higher self-esteem (Study 1 and Study 2) and higher narcissism (Study 1) were associated with them giving lower (more aggressive) evaluations of the "professor." Moreover, consistent with findings on self-serving biases, participants higher in self-esteem who were in the positive grade/feedback condition exhibited a self-enhancing bias by giving their "professor" higher evaluations (Study 1 and Study 2). The aforementioned relationships were not moderated by the professor's sex or rank (teaching assistant vs.professor). Results provide evidence that (1) students do aggress against professors through poor teaching evaluations, (2) threatened egotism among individuals with high self-esteem is associated with more aggression, especially when coupled with high narcissism, and (3) self-enhancing biases are robust among those with high self-esteem.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Students Aggress Against Professors in Reaction to Receiving Poor Grades: An Effect Moderated by Student Narcissism and Self‐Esteem

Vaillancourt

2012

Aggressive Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What do we know of the process used by students to respond to student rating items? Although there have been several studies (Marlin, 1987;Dwinell and Higbee, 1993;Ballantyne, 1998) of student attitudes about student ratings, we still know very little about the actual process students follow when responding to rating forms. Do students respond to items by comparing the instructor's performance to that of other instructors or to some idealized standard?…”

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

confidence: 97%

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

“…In those studies that have been conducted, students surveyed have indicated that the evaluations are important and students are quali ed to rate their professors, but they are not too optimistic about the overall weight put by administrators and faculty on student opinion (Abbott et al, 1990;Ahmadi, 1981;Ballantyne, 1998;Friedlander, 1978;Marlin, 1987;Miron & Segal, 1986;Tapp, 1985;Wulff et al, 1985).…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Each of the analyses above speaks to some of the issues addressed in the current study, yet each is also slightly different. Some focus on a different culture or very rigid curriculum/professional orientation (Ahmadi, 1981;Ballantyne, 1998;Harnash-Glezer & Meyer, 1991;Marlin, 1987;Miron & Segal, 1986;Neumann & Neumann, 1981), or a community college setting (Tapp, 1985), and all have concentrated separately on either undergraduate or graduate students. The current research makes a point of using a wider lens to include students from several majors and levels of academic experience, in an effort to uncover a more broad-ranging reaction to evaluation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation

Spencer

Schmelkin

2002

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research on student ratings of instruction, while voluminous, has had minimal focus on the perceptions of the students who do the ratings. The current study explored student perspectives on course and teacher ratings as well as some issues related to teaching effectiveness and faculty roles. It was found that students are generally willing to do evaluations and to provide feedback, and have no particular fear of repercussions. However, they have little con dence that faculty or administrators pay attention to the results, and do not even consult the ratings themselves. The students view teaching and advising as the most important roles that should be played by faculty, yet project that faculty, while also viewing teaching as the most important, would rank research above the more student-interactive advising. Canonical correlations among various scales reveal a strong emphasis on such issues of the importance of faculty respect for student views.Student ratings of instruction have been in extensive use on college campuses for several decades (e.g. Marsh, 1987;Seldin, 1993), and, despite some inconsistencies and unresolved issues, have been relatively well accepted by researchers and practitioners in the eld. The vast research literature has primarily focused on such areas as their reliability, validity, relationships to other variables, and potentially biasing factors, leading to such conclusions as those by Marsh and Bailey (1993), who held that for well-constructed instruments, such ratings are: (a) multidimensional; (b) reliable and stable; (c) primarily a function of the instructor who teaches a course rather than of the course that is taught; (d) relatively valid against a variety of indicators of effective teaching; [and] (e) relatively unaffected by a variety of variables hypothesized as potential biases to the ratings. (p. 1) Among the plethora of studies are many that have uncovered various dimensions used as organising structures in the creation of instruments. Others have explored differences

show abstract

Student Perception of End-of-Course Evaluations

Cited by 21 publications

References 12 publications

Students Aggress Against Professors in Reaction to Receiving Poor Grades: An Effect Moderated by Student Narcissism and Self‐Esteem

Students Aggress Against Professors in Reaction to Receiving Poor Grades: An Effect Moderated by Student Narcissism and Self‐Esteem

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

Student Perspectives on Teaching and its Evaluation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About