Wednesday, September 28, 2011

Student perceptions of teaching evaluations.

Student perceptions of teaching evaluations. This study examines how students perceive per��ceivev.1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. official studentevaluations of teaching (SETs) and unofficial un��of��fi��cialadj.Of or being a drug that is not listed in the United States Pharmacopeia or the National Formulary. mid-semester evaluations(MSEs). It also examines whether completing a MSE MSE Mouse (computer)MSE Materials Science & EngineeringMSE Mean Squared ErrorMSE Mean Square ErrorMSE Master of Science in EngineeringMSE Manufacturing Systems EngineeringMSE Mechanically Stabilized Earth affects students'perceptions of the course and the instructor. A survey revealed thatparticipants (N = 80) believed SETs are valid measures of teaching;however, they had doubts about whether students or instructors takethese evaluations seriously. On the other hand, participants had verypositive perceptions of MSEs and instructors who conduct them.Furthermore, completing a MSE positively affected perceptions of theinstructor's responsibility, his commitment to teaching, and hisdesire for the class to do well. Implications and limitations of theseresults are discussed. ********** Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are widely used in highereducation higher educationStudy beyond the level of secondary education. Institutions of higher education include not only colleges and universities but also professional schools in such fields as law, theology, medicine, business, music, and art. to assess instructors' performance and to provide a meansof accountability The traceability of actions performed on a system to a specific system entity (user, process, device). For example, the use of unique user identification and authentication supports accountability; the use of shared user IDs and passwords destroys accountability. for the college or university (Williams & Ceci,1997). Administrators routinely use SETs when making decisions about thehiring, tenure, and promotion of instructors (Newport Newport, town, EnglandNewport,town (1991 pop. 19,758), Isle of Wight, S England. It is also a port and the commercial center of the island, with agricultural markets and light industries (plastics, soft drinks, and woodworking). In the 17th cent. , 1996). Theseevaluations are also sometimes made available to students for use incourse selection (Marsh 1987). However, there is a debate over theutility of SETs for these purposes. Critics argue that SETs are prone to bias and that students areincapable of effectively evaluating teaching (e.g. Wachtel Wachtel is a surname, and may refer to: Christine Wachtel Eleanor Wachtel Marion Wachtel Waddy Wachtel This page or section lists people with the surname Wachtel. , 1998).Because SETs have become such an important factor in employmentdecisions, instructors may be temped to grade leniently le��ni��ent?adj.Inclined not to be harsh or strict; merciful, generous, or indulgent: lenient parents; lenient rules. , and as aresult, academic standards may suffer. Proponents contend that studentsare indeed capable of evaluating teaching (Miller, 1988) and thatwell-developed well-developedadj [arm, muscle etc] → bien desarrollado; [sense] → agudo, finowell-developedadj [girl SETs serve as one of the best measures of teachingeffectiveness (Hobson Hobson may refer to:People with the surname Hobson: Hobson (surname) In places: Hobson, County Durham, a village in England Hobson, Montana, United States See also & Talbot, 2001). Research on the reliability and validity of SETs is mixed. West(1988) found that students were only moderately consistent in theirevaluations of instructors over time. Furthermore, students'ratings can be influenced by a variety of factors--including class-size(Min & Baozhi, 1998), time of day (Greenwald Greenwald may refer to: Greenwald, Minnesota, USA Greenwald as a surname may refer to: Greenwald family, the rabbinic family of Puppa (Hasidic dynasty), originated from Hungary Alex Greenwald Andy Greenwald & Gilmore Gilmore is a surname, and may refer to: PeopleAlan C. Gilmore Art Gilmore Artis Gilmore Bob Gilmore Bryan Gilmore Charles W. Gilmore, American paleontologist of the early 20th century Daniel Gilmore Don Gilmore Eamon Gilmore , 1997),race and attractiveness of the instructor (Rao RAO Retiree Activities OfficeRAO Right Anterior Oblique (Radiologic Term)RAO Retinal Artery OcclusionRAO Remedial Action ObjectiveRAO Response Amplitude Operator (mechanical engineering), 1995), and expectedgrade (Marsh & Roche n. 1. Rock. , 2000). On the other hand, a number of studieslend support to the claim that SETs are reliable and valid measures ofteaching (e.g. Gamliel & Davidovitz, 2005). Drew, Burroughs See Unisys. , andNokovish (1987) validated val��i��date?tr.v. val��i��dat��ed, val��i��dat��ing, val��i��dates1. To declare or make legally valid.2. To mark with an indication of official sanction.3. student evaluations by assessingstudent-instructor agreement about day-to-day day-to-dayadj.1. Occurring on a routine or daily basis: the day-to-day movements of the stock market.2. variability withincourses. Students' reports were strongly related to those ofinstructors. Although the reliability and validity of SETs has received muchattention, relatively few studies have examined how students perceivethese evaluations. Students seem to be generally willing to completeSETs and try to be fair and accurate (Spencer Spencer,city (1990 pop. 11,066), seat of Clay co., NW Iowa, on the Little Sioux River; inc. 1880. The city lies in a fertile farm area. Beef is processed, and Spencer's manufactures include work clothes, machinery, prefabricated buildings, and metal products. & Schmelkin, 2002).Students also tend to have confidence in their ability to assessinstructors. In one survey, the majority of students believed that SETsprovide an effective measure of teaching (Dwinell & Higbee Higbee can refer to: Higbee's, a former Cleveland, Ohio department store purchased by Dillard's Lenah Higbee, naval nurse Mahlon Higbee (1901-1968), Major league Baseball catcher Higbee, Missouri USS Higbee (DD-806), a destroyer , 1993).However, the results of other surveys suggest that students areskeptical about the utility of SETs. Spencer and Schmelkin (2002) foundthat students do not believe that instructors or administrators takethese evaluations seriously. Even if SETs are valid measures of teaching, they pose afundamental problem for instructors being evaluated. Because SETs aretypically conducted at the end of the semester se��mes��ter?n.One of two divisions of 15 to 18 weeks each of an academic year.[German, from Latin (cursus) s , instructors do not havethe opportunity to make changes to the course for which they are beingevaluated. If instructors conducted their own mid-semester evaluations(MSEs), they should be able to better assess student learning and makeimmediate changes to their curriculum or teaching style. Price andGoldman Gold��man? , Emma 1869-1940.Russian-born American anarchist. Jailed repeatedly for her advocacy of birth control and opposition to military conscription, she was deported to the Soviet Union in 1919. (1981) found that conducting MSEs led to improved ratings onend-of-semester evaluations. Conducting unofficial MSEs may also convey conveyv. to transfer title (official ownership) to real property (or an interest in real property) from one (grantor) to another (grantee) by a written deed (or an equivalent document such as a judgment of distribution which conveys real property from an estate). to students a genuine interest in how well they are learning. The purpose of this study was to examine how students perceiveofficial SETs and unofficial MSEs. I was also interested in whethercompleting MSEs would affect how students perceive the course and theinstructor. Consistent with previous findings, I expected students toperceive SETs as effective measures but question the extent to whichinstructors and other students take them seriously. I also expectedstudents to have generally positive perceptions about unofficial MSEsand that completing such evaluations would positively affect howstudents perceive the course and instructor. Method Participants Participants (N = 80) were undergraduates enrolled in anExperimental Psychology course taught by the author in two consecutivesemesters. The majority of students were psychology majors (91%) andseniors in college (75%). Participation was voluntary, and students didnot receive any compensation. Materials & Procedures Six weeks into the first semester, students (n = 40) in myExperimental Psychology class completed an unofficial mid-semesterevaluation of the course. This evaluation asked students to rate myperformance, the pace of the course, and the difficulty of the material.Students were also asked to describe what they liked best, and least,about the course and how I could better facilitate learning. To ensurethat this feedback did not influence my performance across semesters, Idid not look at these evaluations until all the data for this study wascollected. At the end of the semester, participants completed a surveyabout their perceptions of official SETs and unofficial MSEs. The surveyasked participants how often SETs should be conducted and whetherinstructors should do their own MSEs. Participants were also asked torate how much they agreed or disagreed with the 16 items listed in Table3. Responses were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with 1 beinglow on the scale and 7 being high. Students (n = 40) in the second semester class served as a controlgroup. These participants did not complete a mid-semester evaluation;however, they did complete the survey about SETs and MSEs at the end ofthe semester. The instructions were manipulated to ask students how theythought completing a mid-semester evaluation would affect theirperceptions of the course and the instructor. Results Perceptions of Students Evaluations of Teaching One-sample t tests were conducted to evaluate whetherparticipants' responses were significantly different from 4, themiddle-most score on the scale. Overall, participants' wereindifferent INDIFFERENT. To have no bias nor partiality. 7 Conn. 229. A juror, an arbitrator, and a witness, ought to be indifferent, and when they are not so, they may be challenged. See 9 Conn. 42. about whether SETs are useful. However, participants didbelieve that SETs are important for hiring and promotion decisions.Participants also believed that students are honest in their evaluationsand that SETs are effective measures of teaching. However, participantswere indifferent about whether instructors or students take SETsseriously. In fact, participants believed that students are likely torate instructors based on the grade they receive in the class and to useSETs to "get back" at instructors. When asked how often SETsshould be conducted, 17.5 % responded "several times asemester," 67.5% responded "once a semester," 3.75%responded "once a year," and 11.25% responded "less thanonce a year" or "never." Perceptions of Mid-Semester Evaluations Overall, participants had positive perceptions of unofficial MSEs.In fact, the majority of participants (88.75%) reported that instructorsshould consider conducting their own MSEs. Participants believed thatconducting MSEs would improve students and instructors'performance, as well as improve students and instructors' attitudetowards the class. Participants also believed that conducting MSEsimplies (logic) implies - (=> or a thin right arrow) A binary Boolean function and logical connective. A => B is true unless A is true and B is false. The truth table isA B | A => B ----+------- F F | T F T | T T F | F T T | TIt is surprising at first that A => that the instructor has clear teaching goals, is committed toteaching, is fulfilling his responsibility, and has a desire to seestudents succeed. Effects of Completing Mid-Semester Evaluations Independent-samples t tests revealed several differences inperceptions between students who completed a MSE and those who did not.Students who completed a MSE were more likely to believe that studentsare honest in SETs, that SETs are accurate measures of teaching, andthat students take SETs seriously. These participants were also morelikely to believe that conducting MSEs implies that the instructor iscommitted to teaching, is fulfilling his responsibility, and has adesire to see the students do well. Discussion Consistent with previous findings, participants believed that SETsare honest and accurate measures of teaching. At the same time,participants expressed some doubt about the validity and utility ofSETs. Thus, students may think they are effective evaluators of teachingbut share some of the concerns that critics of SETs hold. On the other hand, participants reported very positive perceptionsof MSEs. Participants believed that MSEs improve students andinstructors' performance and attitude towards the class.Furthermore, participants ascribed a number of favorable fa��vor��a��ble?adj.1. Advantageous; helpful: favorable winds.2. Encouraging; propitious: a favorable diagnosis.3. characteristicsto instructors who conduct such evaluations. Completing a MSE positively affected how participants perceived per��ceive?tr.v. per��ceived, per��ceiv��ing, per��ceives1. To become aware of directly through any of the senses, especially sight or hearing.2. To achieve understanding of; apprehend. both the instructor and official SETs. Mid-semester evaluations may givestudents the impression that their feedback matters. This impression, inturn, reflects positively on the instructor and official SETs.Completing a MSE did not influence participants' perception ofstudents or the instructor's performance. This is not surprisinggiven the fact that I did not look at the mid-semester feedback untilthe end of data collection. Because this study only examines students' perceptions, we donot know if conducting MSEs actually have an impact on students orinstructors' performance. Future research should examine howinstructors perceive MSEs and whether such evaluations improve teachingand the relationship between students and instructors. The results ofthis study suggest that students believe they will, and there is someempirical em��pir��i��caladj.1. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.2. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment.3. work to support this belief (Price & Goldman, 1981).However, even if MSEs prove to be ineffective in improving performance,they appear to positively affect students' impressions aboutinstructors who conduct them, which may help facilitate learning andprovide for a more satisfying classroom environment in and of itself. References Drews, D.R., Burroughs, W.J., Nokovich, D. (1987), Teacherself-ratings as a validity criterion for student evaluations. Teachingof Psychology, 14(1), 23-25. Dwinell, P.L., & Higbee, J.L. (1993). Students'perceptions of the value of teaching evaluations. Perceptual per��cep��tu��aladj.Of, based on, or involving perception. and MotorSkills, 76(3), 995-1000. Gamliel, E., & Davidovitz, L. (2005). Online versus traditionalteaching evaluation: Mode can matter. Assessment & Evaluation inHigher Education, 30(6), 581-592. Greenwald, A. G. & Gilmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency le��ni��en��cy?n. pl. le��ni��en��cies1. The condition or quality of being lenient. See Synonyms at mercy.2. A lenient act.Noun 1. is aremovable contaminant contaminant/con��tam��i��nant/ (kon-tam��in-int) something that causes contamination. contaminantsomething that causes contamination. of student ratings. American Psychologist The American Psychologist is the official journal of the American Psychological Association. It contains archival documents and articles covering current issues in psychology, the science and practice of psychology, and psychology's contribution to public policy. , 52,1209-1217. Hobson, S. M., & Talbot, D. M. (2001). Understanding studentevaluations: What all faculty should know. College Teaching 49(1),26-31. Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of universityteaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions forfuture research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3),253-388. Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students'evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues ofvalidity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197. Miller, R. I. (1988). Evaluating Faculty for Promotion and Tenure(San Francisco San Francisco(săn frănsĭs`kō), city (1990 pop. 723,959), coextensive with San Francisco co., W Calif., on the tip of a peninsula between the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay, which are connected by the strait known as the Golden , Jossey-Bass). Min, Q, & Baozhi, S. (1998). Factor's affectingstudents' classroom teaching evaluations. Teaching and Learning inMedicine, 10(1), 12-15. Newport, F. J. (1996). Rating teaching in the USA: probing thequalifications of student raters and novice teachers, Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 21(1), 17-21. Prince, A. R., & Goldman, M. (1981). Improving part-time part-timeadj.For or during less than the customary or standard time: a part-time job.part faculty instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 8(3), 160-162. Rao, N. (1995). The oh no! syndrome: A language expectation modelof undergraduate negative reactions toward foreign teaching assistants.Paper presented as the 79th Annual Meeting of the InternationalCommunication Association, Albuquerque Albuquerque(ăl`bəkûr'kē), city (1990 pop. 384,736), seat of Bernalillo co., W central N.Mex., on the upper Rio Grande; inc. 1890. , NM, May 25-29, 1995. Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectiveson teaching and its evaluation, Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 27(5), 397-409. Wachtel, H. K. (1998) Student evaluation of college teachingeffectiveness: A brief review, Assessment & Evaluation in HigherEducation, 23(2), 191-211. West, R. F. (1988). The short-term Short-termAny investments with a maturity of one year or less.short-term1. Of or relating to a gain or loss on the value of an asset that has been held less than a specified period of time. stability of student ratings ofinstruction in medical school. Medical Education, 22, 104-112. Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997). "How'm Idoing?" problems with student ratings of instructors and courses.Change, 29(5), 12-23. Michael Michael, archangelMichael(mī`kəl)[Heb.,=who is like God?], archangel prominent in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim traditions. In the Bible and early Jewish literature, Michael is one of the angels of God's presence. J. Brown, Instructor, Brooklyn Brooklyn(brk`lĭn), borough of New York City (1990 pop. 2,300,664), 71 sq mi (184 sq km), coextensive with Kings co., SE N.Y. College--CUNY. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toMichael J. Brown at mbrown@brooklyn.cuny.edu See .edu. (networking) edu - ("education") The top-level domain for educational establishments in the USA (and some other countries). E.g. "mit.edu". The UK equivalent is "ac.uk". Table 1Students' Perceptions of Student Evaluations of Teaching Effect Sized M (SD) df t dSETs are useful 4.20 (1.71) 78 1.05 .17SETs important for hiring/promotion 4.56 (1.67) 79 3.02 .34 **Students are honest in SET's 4.56 (1.43) 79 3.49 .39 **SETs are accurate 4.66 (1.23) 79 4.81 .54 **Instructors take SETs seriously 4.21 (1.70) 79 1.12 .12Students take SETs seriously 4.13 (1.77) 79 0.63 .07Students evaluate based on grade 4.90 (1.33) 79 6.06 .68 **Students use SETs to get back at profs. 4.41 (1.12) 79 3.29 .37 *** p < .05, ** p < .01Table 2Students' Perceptions of Mid-Semester Evaluations Effect Size M (SD) df t dImprove student performance 4.68 (1.00) 78 6.19 .68 **Improve prof. performance 5.13 (1.20) 78 8.40 .94 **Improve students' attitude toward class 4.82 (1.16) 78 6.29 .71 **Improve prof. attitude toward class 4.89 (1.17) 78 6.76 .76 **Implies clear teaching goals 5.63 (1.22) 79 11.96 .68 **Implies commitment to teaching 5.84 (1.12) 79 14.69 1.64 **Implies responsibility to students 5.78 (1.24) 78 12.83 1.44 **Implies desire to see students do well 5.84 (1.17) 79 14.00 1.57 *** p < .05, ** p < .01Table 3Effects of Completing Mid-Semester Evaluations MSEs No MSEs M (SD) M (SD) dfSETs are useful 4.42(1.59) 4.00(1.82) 77SETs important for hiring/promotion 4.82(1.43) 4.32(1.85) 78Students are honest in SETs 5.10(1.00) 4.05(1.61) 78SETs are accurate 5.08(0.99) 4.27(1.36) 78Instructors take SETs seriously 4.46(1.78) 3.98(1.60) 78Students take SETs seriously 4.54(1.64) 3.73(1.82) 78Students evaluate based on grade 4.82(1.47) 4.98(1.19) 78Students use SETs to get back at 4.46(1.07) 4.37(1.18) 78profs.Improve student performance 4.67(1.00) 4.70(1.02) 77Improve prof. performance 5.08(1.06) 5.18(1.32) 77Improve students' attitude toward 4.67(1.03) 4.97(1.27) 77classImprove prof. attitude toward class 4.79(1.00) 4.97(1.35) 77Implies clear teachings goals 5.74(1.35) 5.51(1.08) 78Implies commitment to teaching 6.18(1.00) 5.51(1.14) 78 Effect Size t dSETs are useful -1.10 .25SETs important for hiring/promotion -1.36 .30Students are honest in SETs -3.50 .78 **SETs are accurate -3.10 .78 **Instructors take SETs seriously -1.29 .28Students take SETs seriously -2.10 .47 *Students evaluate based on grade -0.52 .12Students use SETs to get back at -0.38 .08profs.Improve student performance 0.15 .03Improve prof. performance 0.36 .08Improve students' attitude toward 1.18 .26classImprove prof. attitude toward class 0.68 .15Implies clear teachings goals -0.85 .19Implies commitment to teaching -2.78 .62 *** p < .05, ** p < .01

No comments:

Post a Comment