是否有可能纠正学生评价教学调查中的非教学偏见?会计和金融课程中的定量分析

IF 2.6 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
J.L. Arroyo-Barriguete , C. Bada , L. Lazcano , J. Márquez , J.M. Ortiz-Lozano , A. Rua-Vieites
{"title":"是否有可能纠正学生评价教学调查中的非教学偏见?会计和金融课程中的定量分析","authors":"J.L. Arroyo-Barriguete ,&nbsp;C. Bada ,&nbsp;L. Lazcano ,&nbsp;J. Márquez ,&nbsp;J.M. Ortiz-Lozano ,&nbsp;A. Rua-Vieites","doi":"10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Several studies have reported that student evaluation of teaching (SET) presents important problems. First, depending on the area, there are significant differences in the evaluations. Second, numerous noninstructional biases exist, such as when those teachers who award better grades obtain better SETs. Correcting the rankings by considering these biases (e.g., adjusting SETs according to the class grade) has been proposed. In this paper, we analyse a third problem: it is impossible to correct the biases because they are specific to each area, level, and even class. On a sample of 15,439 SETs, we compared the biases present in two very close areas (accounting and finance) and at two levels (undergraduate and postgraduate). Then, we used a procedure based on the analysis of residuals in OLS models to eliminate area- and level-specific biases. However, there are still latent biases apparently linked to each specific group of students.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":47539,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is it possible to redress noninstructional biases in student evaluation of teaching surveys? Quantitative analysis in accounting and finance courses\",\"authors\":\"J.L. Arroyo-Barriguete ,&nbsp;C. Bada ,&nbsp;L. Lazcano ,&nbsp;J. Márquez ,&nbsp;J.M. Ortiz-Lozano ,&nbsp;A. Rua-Vieites\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101263\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Several studies have reported that student evaluation of teaching (SET) presents important problems. First, depending on the area, there are significant differences in the evaluations. Second, numerous noninstructional biases exist, such as when those teachers who award better grades obtain better SETs. Correcting the rankings by considering these biases (e.g., adjusting SETs according to the class grade) has been proposed. In this paper, we analyse a third problem: it is impossible to correct the biases because they are specific to each area, level, and even class. On a sample of 15,439 SETs, we compared the biases present in two very close areas (accounting and finance) and at two levels (undergraduate and postgraduate). Then, we used a procedure based on the analysis of residuals in OLS models to eliminate area- and level-specific biases. However, there are still latent biases apparently linked to each specific group of students.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47539,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Educational Evaluation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X23000299\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Educational Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X23000299","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

一些研究报告称,学生教学评价(SET)存在重要问题。首先,根据地区的不同,评价存在显著差异。其次,存在许多非结构性偏见,比如那些成绩更好的老师获得了更好的SET。有人建议通过考虑这些偏差来纠正排名(例如,根据班级成绩调整SET)。在这篇论文中,我们分析了第三个问题:不可能纠正偏见,因为它们针对每个领域、级别甚至班级。在15439个SET样本中,我们比较了两个非常接近的领域(会计和金融)和两个层次(本科生和研究生)存在的偏见。然后,我们使用了一个基于OLS模型残差分析的程序来消除区域和级别特定的偏差。然而,仍然存在明显与每一特定学生群体相关的潜在偏见。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Is it possible to redress noninstructional biases in student evaluation of teaching surveys? Quantitative analysis in accounting and finance courses

Is it possible to redress noninstructional biases in student evaluation of teaching surveys? Quantitative analysis in accounting and finance courses

Several studies have reported that student evaluation of teaching (SET) presents important problems. First, depending on the area, there are significant differences in the evaluations. Second, numerous noninstructional biases exist, such as when those teachers who award better grades obtain better SETs. Correcting the rankings by considering these biases (e.g., adjusting SETs according to the class grade) has been proposed. In this paper, we analyse a third problem: it is impossible to correct the biases because they are specific to each area, level, and even class. On a sample of 15,439 SETs, we compared the biases present in two very close areas (accounting and finance) and at two levels (undergraduate and postgraduate). Then, we used a procedure based on the analysis of residuals in OLS models to eliminate area- and level-specific biases. However, there are still latent biases apparently linked to each specific group of students.

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
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
90
审稿时长
62 days
期刊介绍: Studies in Educational Evaluation publishes original reports of evaluation studies. Four types of articles are published by the journal: (a) Empirical evaluation studies representing evaluation practice in educational systems around the world; (b) Theoretical reflections and empirical studies related to issues involved in the evaluation of educational programs, educational institutions, educational personnel and student assessment; (c) Articles summarizing the state-of-the-art concerning specific topics in evaluation in general or in a particular country or group of countries; (d) Book reviews and brief abstracts of evaluation studies.
×
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