如果(我的)6 是(你的)9。学生教学评价中的异质性报告

IF 2.2 2区 经济学 Q2 ECONOMICS
{"title":"如果(我的)6 是(你的)9。学生教学评价中的异质性报告","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.labeco.2024.102567","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) are subjective measures of student satisfaction that are often used to assess teaching quality. In this paper, we show that heterogeneity in students’ reporting styles challenges SET validity. Using administrative data that enable us to track all evaluations produced by each student, we isolate student-specific reporting scales. We show that reporting heterogeneity explains at least one third of the within-course variation in SET. We also document that students sort across elective courses according to their reporting style. As a result, the average evaluation of two otherwise identical electives can differ only because of heterogeneity in the reporting style of students attending them. Using a simulation exercise, we show that this type of sorting coupled with large sampling variability severely alter the ranking of courses within a major, calling into question the use of SET to incentivise teachers.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48153,"journal":{"name":"Labour Economics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537124000629/pdfft?md5=3e35aaa2b75103a96c81410205f9d16f&pid=1-s2.0-S0927537124000629-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"If (my) 6 was (your) 9. Reporting heterogeneity in student evaluations of teaching\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.labeco.2024.102567\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) are subjective measures of student satisfaction that are often used to assess teaching quality. In this paper, we show that heterogeneity in students’ reporting styles challenges SET validity. Using administrative data that enable us to track all evaluations produced by each student, we isolate student-specific reporting scales. We show that reporting heterogeneity explains at least one third of the within-course variation in SET. We also document that students sort across elective courses according to their reporting style. As a result, the average evaluation of two otherwise identical electives can differ only because of heterogeneity in the reporting style of students attending them. Using a simulation exercise, we show that this type of sorting coupled with large sampling variability severely alter the ranking of courses within a major, calling into question the use of SET to incentivise teachers.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48153,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Labour Economics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537124000629/pdfft?md5=3e35aaa2b75103a96c81410205f9d16f&pid=1-s2.0-S0927537124000629-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Labour Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537124000629\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Labour Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537124000629","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学生教学评价(SET)是衡量学生满意度的主观指标,通常用于评估教学质量。在本文中,我们表明学生报告风格的异质性对 SET 的有效性提出了挑战。我们利用行政数据跟踪每个学生的所有评价,分离出学生特定的报告量表。我们发现,报告的异质性至少可以解释 SET 中三分之一的课程内差异。我们还记录了学生根据其报告风格对选修课程进行分类的情况。因此,对两门完全相同的选修课的平均评价之所以不同,只是因为选修这两门课的学生的报告风格存在异质性。通过模拟练习,我们发现这种类型的排序加上较大的抽样变异会严重改变专业课程的排名,从而对使用 SET 来激励教师提出质疑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
If (my) 6 was (your) 9. Reporting heterogeneity in student evaluations of teaching

Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) are subjective measures of student satisfaction that are often used to assess teaching quality. In this paper, we show that heterogeneity in students’ reporting styles challenges SET validity. Using administrative data that enable us to track all evaluations produced by each student, we isolate student-specific reporting scales. We show that reporting heterogeneity explains at least one third of the within-course variation in SET. We also document that students sort across elective courses according to their reporting style. As a result, the average evaluation of two otherwise identical electives can differ only because of heterogeneity in the reporting style of students attending them. Using a simulation exercise, we show that this type of sorting coupled with large sampling variability severely alter the ranking of courses within a major, calling into question the use of SET to incentivise teachers.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Labour Economics
Labour Economics ECONOMICS-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
142
期刊介绍: Labour Economics is devoted to publishing research in the field of labour economics both on the microeconomic and on the macroeconomic level, in a balanced mix of theory, empirical testing and policy applications. It gives due recognition to analysis and explanation of institutional arrangements of national labour markets and the impact of these institutions on labour market outcomes.
×
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