Student ratings of faculty teaching effectiveness: Rater or ratee characteristics

The relationship between student personality characteristics, teacher ratings, and student achievement.

“…There are many possible explanations for the inconsistency between our conclusions and the conclusions of prior researchers and reviewers (e.g., Follman, 1975). Three appear most likely.…”

“…It is not surprising that major reviews of the literature have reached different conclusions. Follman (1975) reported that the research evidence overwhelmingly indicated a relationship between student personality characteristics and teacher ratings, with single traits expected to correlate with TRF scores up to .25, and multiple traits expected to correlate with TRF scores up to .45. Feldman's (1977) conclusions were markedly different.…”

Relationship of student and instructor educational orientations with course ratings.

“…Other factors which may influence course ratings were not taken into consideration in this study -for example, class standing of students, sex of the ratee, whether the course was required, achievement level of students, the general degree of interest a student has in the course itself, and so on. The evidence on the importance of these factors is mixed based on reviews of the literature (Costin et al, 1971;Follman, 1975;Miller, 1974). Nevertheless, using and controlling for these variables may have altered the results of this study with respect to the usefulness of student and faculty orientations.…”

“…Several researchers have dealt solely with instructors' personality correlates (Bendig, 1955;Isaacson, McKeachie, & Milholland, 1963;Sorey, 1968), while others have assessed students' personality correlates of ratings (Rezler, 1965;Yonge & Sassenrath, 1968;Grande & McCollester, Note 1). Follman (1975), in his review of the influence of rater and ratee characteristics, concludes that "college student raters' personality characteristics and expectations influence their ratings of instructors' teaching effectiveness" (pp. [163][164].…”

The New Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in the Context of University Personnel Decisions

“…However, numerous studies concerning faculty evaluations have suggested a number of sources of error that affect the validity of student ratings (e.g., Battle and Fabick, 1975;Barnoski and Scokloff, 1976;Bassin, 1974;Morgan and Ogden, in press). Variables such as the expected course grades, the time of day classes are taught, class size, math orientation of the course, whether the course is elective or required, the number of courses taken, the number of written assignments, student rank, and differences in sex between professor and students account for a significant variance in faculty ratings (e.g., Bassin, 1974;Bridges, Ware, Brown, and Greenwood, 1971;Crittenden, Noor, and LeBailly, 1975;Follman, 1975;Frey, Leonard, and Beatty, 1975;Gadzella, 1968;Gage, 1961;Haslett, 1976;Hocking, 1976;Houston, Crosswhite, and King, 1974;Kohlan, 1975;Lovell and Haner, 1955;Rayder, 1968;Rodin and Rodin, 1972;Sheehan, 1975;Sullivan and Skanes, 1974;Wilson and Doyle, 1977;Wood, Linsky, and Strauss, 1974). Moreover, psychometric errors such as leniency effect, central tendency, halo effect, and interrater unreliability that typify most kinds of subjective criteria also beset student rating systems (Bernardin, Alvares, and Cranny, 1976;Burnaska and Hollman, 1974;Eder, Keaveny, McGann, and Beatty, 1978;Keaveny and McGann, 1975).…”