Michelle L. Rivers, Addison L. Babineau, Katherine P. Neely, Sarah K. Tauber
{"title":"How do Students and Faculty Consider Numerical Ratings and Comments About Daily Quizzing when Interpreting Student Evaluations of Teaching?","authors":"Michelle L. Rivers, Addison L. Babineau, Katherine P. Neely, Sarah K. Tauber","doi":"10.1177/00986283231199454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are used to assess faculty performance, but prior research has identified sources of bias in the completion and interpretation of SETs. Objective: We investigated how SET ratings and comments about quizzes are interpreted by faculty and undergraduates. Method: Participants made judgments about teaching effectiveness after reviewing a fictional professor's SETs. SETs varied in whether the professor was rated lower or higher than the departmental average using quantitative measures, and whether qualitative comments about the professor mentioned daily quizzes. Results: In Experiment 1, more positive evaluations were provided for SETs with higher ratings, whereas comments about quizzing minimally influenced evaluations; this pattern was similar for student and faculty responses. In Experiment 2, qualitative comments were presented in isolation. Student participants provided more positive evaluations for some measures of teaching effectiveness when regular quizzing was mentioned in student comments. Conclusion: Quantitative SET ratings may overshadow qualitative comments about effective teaching practices yet qualitative ratings presented alone reveal some association between quizzing and evaluations of teaching. Teaching Implications: SET interpretation should focus on effective pedagogy such as quizzing, which can aid student learning. We found no evidence that comments about quizzing lowered perceptions of teaching effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283231199454","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are used to assess faculty performance, but prior research has identified sources of bias in the completion and interpretation of SETs. Objective: We investigated how SET ratings and comments about quizzes are interpreted by faculty and undergraduates. Method: Participants made judgments about teaching effectiveness after reviewing a fictional professor's SETs. SETs varied in whether the professor was rated lower or higher than the departmental average using quantitative measures, and whether qualitative comments about the professor mentioned daily quizzes. Results: In Experiment 1, more positive evaluations were provided for SETs with higher ratings, whereas comments about quizzing minimally influenced evaluations; this pattern was similar for student and faculty responses. In Experiment 2, qualitative comments were presented in isolation. Student participants provided more positive evaluations for some measures of teaching effectiveness when regular quizzing was mentioned in student comments. Conclusion: Quantitative SET ratings may overshadow qualitative comments about effective teaching practices yet qualitative ratings presented alone reveal some association between quizzing and evaluations of teaching. Teaching Implications: SET interpretation should focus on effective pedagogy such as quizzing, which can aid student learning. We found no evidence that comments about quizzing lowered perceptions of teaching effectiveness.