Post-Secondary Student Evaluations of Teachers: The Debate of Usefulness Continues

Heather Dana, Scott Morrissette, Sheree Nelson
{"title":"Post-Secondary Student Evaluations of Teachers: The Debate of Usefulness Continues","authors":"Heather Dana, Scott Morrissette, Sheree Nelson","doi":"10.5539/jel.v12n3p54","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Student evaluations of teachers (SETs) are collected by colleges and universities across the country. Having only been introduced in the early part of the twentieth century, these evaluations are a fairly new tool for higher education administrators to receive feedback and assess the effectiveness of curriculum and instructors. Although implemented as a tool to provide students a medium to share their perspectives, with the goal to improve academic processes, there are concerns regarding their effectiveness, reliability, purpose, and necessity. Further, the literature reflects that students are not well versed by college administrations or faculty members regarding the desired impacts and purpose of SETs, so they are often not completed in a manner that includes cognitive engagement, accurate recall, or the genuine desire to provide constructive feedback and assessment. Even with these limitations, college and university administrators have grown to rely upon SETs to provide constructive insights for instructors to help them improve their teaching effectiveness and summative feedback for committees to use when making promotion, tenure, and compensation decisions. The disconnect between SET objectives and the actual outcomes, however, is problematic. Students often don’t view SETs as impactful, so their level of cognitive engagement is lacking, which can result in skewed, or even false assessments. In fact, since most SETs are completed with the promise of anonymity, they have been used as a weapon by disgruntled students against instructors, regardless of whether the negative feedback is deserved. Finally, SETs have been directly correlated to grade inflation, which has numerous negative implications. The following literature review illustrates the myriad shortcomings of SETs, with the hope that further research will help to discover how they can be re-structured to foster academic excellence in a productive and reliable manner.","PeriodicalId":31543,"journal":{"name":"Journal Of Education Teaching and Learning","volume":"129 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal Of Education Teaching and Learning","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v12n3p54","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

Student evaluations of teachers (SETs) are collected by colleges and universities across the country. Having only been introduced in the early part of the twentieth century, these evaluations are a fairly new tool for higher education administrators to receive feedback and assess the effectiveness of curriculum and instructors. Although implemented as a tool to provide students a medium to share their perspectives, with the goal to improve academic processes, there are concerns regarding their effectiveness, reliability, purpose, and necessity. Further, the literature reflects that students are not well versed by college administrations or faculty members regarding the desired impacts and purpose of SETs, so they are often not completed in a manner that includes cognitive engagement, accurate recall, or the genuine desire to provide constructive feedback and assessment. Even with these limitations, college and university administrators have grown to rely upon SETs to provide constructive insights for instructors to help them improve their teaching effectiveness and summative feedback for committees to use when making promotion, tenure, and compensation decisions. The disconnect between SET objectives and the actual outcomes, however, is problematic. Students often don’t view SETs as impactful, so their level of cognitive engagement is lacking, which can result in skewed, or even false assessments. In fact, since most SETs are completed with the promise of anonymity, they have been used as a weapon by disgruntled students against instructors, regardless of whether the negative feedback is deserved. Finally, SETs have been directly correlated to grade inflation, which has numerous negative implications. The following literature review illustrates the myriad shortcomings of SETs, with the hope that further research will help to discover how they can be re-structured to foster academic excellence in a productive and reliable manner.
大专学生对教师的评价:有用性的争论仍在继续
学生对教师的评价(set)是由全国的高校收集的。这些评估在20世纪初才被引入,是高等教育管理者接收反馈并评估课程和教师有效性的一种相当新的工具。虽然作为一种工具,为学生提供了一个分享他们的观点的媒介,以改善学术过程为目标,但人们对其有效性、可靠性、目的和必要性存在担忧。此外,文献反映了学生们并没有被大学管理人员或教职员工很好地理解set的预期影响和目的,所以他们通常没有以一种包括认知参与、准确回忆或提供建设性反馈和评估的真正愿望的方式完成。即使有这些限制,学院和大学的管理人员已经开始依赖set为教师提供建设性的见解,帮助他们提高教学效率,并为委员会在做出晋升、任期和薪酬决策时提供总结性反馈。然而,SET目标与实际结果之间的脱节是有问题的。学生通常不认为set有影响力,因此他们的认知参与水平不足,这可能导致扭曲甚至错误的评估。事实上,由于大多数set都是在匿名的前提下完成的,因此它们被心怀不满的学生用作对抗教师的武器,而不管这些负面反馈是否应得。最后,set与分数膨胀直接相关,这有许多负面影响。下面的文献综述说明了set的无数缺点,希望进一步的研究将有助于发现如何以有效和可靠的方式重组它们以促进学术卓越。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 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