Abstract
AbstractIn higher education, anonymous student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness and to make high-stakes decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, merit pay, and teaching awards. SET have many desirable properties: SET are quick and cheap to collect, SET means and standard deviations give aura of precision and scientific validity, and SET provide tangible seemingly objective numbers for both high-stake decisions and public accountability purposes. Unfortunately, SET as a measure of teaching effectiveness are fatally flawed. First, experts cannot agree what effective teaching is. They only agree that effective teaching ought to result in learning. Second, SET do not measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness as students do not learn more from more highly rated professors. Third, SET depend on many teaching effectiveness irrelevant factors (TEIFs) not attributable to the professor (e.g., students’ intelligence, students’ prior knowledge, class size, subject). Fourth, SET are influenced by student preference factors (SPFs) whose consideration violates human rights legislation (e.g., ethnicity, accent). Fifth, SET are easily manipulated by chocolates, course easiness, and other incentives. However, student ratings of professors can be used for very limited purposes such as formative feedback and raising alarm about ineffective teaching practices.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference46 articles.
1. Abrami, P. C., & d’Apollonia, S. (1999). Current concerns are past concerns. American Psychologist, 54(7), 519–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.519.
2. Aleamoni, L. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168421283.
3. Beran, T., & Violato, C. (2009). Student ratings of teaching effectiveness: Student engagement and course characteristics. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 39(1), 1–13.
4. Boring, A. (2015). Gender Biases in student evaluations of teachers (No. 2015–13). Documents de Travail de l’OFCE. Observatoire Francais des Conjonctures Economiques (OFCE). https://ideas.repec.org/p/fce/doctra/1513.html. Accessed 4 June 2020.
5. Boring, A. (2017). Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006.
Cited by
22 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献