Student evaluations: Pedagogical tools, or weapons of choice?

IF 0.7 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Warwick G Fisher, J. Orr, John Page, Alessandro Pelizzon, H. Walsh
{"title":"Student evaluations: Pedagogical tools, or weapons of choice?","authors":"Warwick G Fisher, J. Orr, John Page, Alessandro Pelizzon, H. Walsh","doi":"10.53300/001c.14561","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we survey the recent literature of student evaluation surveys ('SETs') in the university sector, in so doing identifying a number of diverse issues that this literature reveals, and contextualising its general findings to the teaching practices of a regional Australian law school.\n\nThis article argues that, contrary to their original intention, SETs are more often used as blunt instruments than nuanced pedagogical tools. Case studies drawn from Southern Cross University's School of Law and Justice corroborate the general tenor of the literature, namely that there is 'little evidence that study findings are being used to change or improve the student learning experience.' Rather, these increasingly streamlined surveys provide online opportunities to take the subjective 'pulse' of student satisfaction, momentary snapshots that often generate instant heat, but shed little light.\n\nWe argue that SETs need to be seen in context, as part of a wider and more pedagogically informed measure of good teaching. While it seems unlikely that SETs in their present form will disappear overnight, their continuing validity requires current teaching evaluation to be itself evaluated, the first priority being the paring back of survey questions to only those factors capable of objective and verifiable measurement.","PeriodicalId":43058,"journal":{"name":"Legal Education Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Legal Education Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.14561","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In this paper, we survey the recent literature of student evaluation surveys ('SETs') in the university sector, in so doing identifying a number of diverse issues that this literature reveals, and contextualising its general findings to the teaching practices of a regional Australian law school. This article argues that, contrary to their original intention, SETs are more often used as blunt instruments than nuanced pedagogical tools. Case studies drawn from Southern Cross University's School of Law and Justice corroborate the general tenor of the literature, namely that there is 'little evidence that study findings are being used to change or improve the student learning experience.' Rather, these increasingly streamlined surveys provide online opportunities to take the subjective 'pulse' of student satisfaction, momentary snapshots that often generate instant heat, but shed little light. We argue that SETs need to be seen in context, as part of a wider and more pedagogically informed measure of good teaching. While it seems unlikely that SETs in their present form will disappear overnight, their continuing validity requires current teaching evaluation to be itself evaluated, the first priority being the paring back of survey questions to only those factors capable of objective and verifiable measurement.
学生评价:教学工具,还是选择武器?
在本文中,我们调查了大学部门学生评价调查(“set”)的最新文献,从而确定了该文献揭示的许多不同问题,并将其一般发现与澳大利亚地区法学院的教学实践相结合。本文认为,与最初的意图相反,set更多地被用作生硬的工具,而不是细致入微的教学工具。来自南十字星大学法律与司法学院的案例研究证实了文献的一般观点,即“几乎没有证据表明研究结果被用来改变或改善学生的学习体验。”更确切地说,这些日益精简的调查提供了一个在线的机会,让人们了解学生满意度的主观“脉搏”,这是一个瞬间的快照,往往会引起即时的热议,但却没有什么启发。我们认为,set需要放在背景中看待,作为衡量良好教学的更广泛、更全面的教学方法的一部分。虽然目前形式的set似乎不太可能在一夜之间消失,但它们的持续有效性要求对当前的教学评估本身进行评估,首要任务是减少调查问题,只保留那些能够客观和可验证的测量因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Legal Education Review
Legal Education Review EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
自引率
66.70%
发文量
7
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信