Student rating myths versus research facts

Abstract

Most of the recent literature on the evaluation of instructional effectiveness has emphasized the need to develop comprehensive systems. However, a careful scrutiny of actual working systems of instructional evaluation reveals that student ratings of instructor and instruction is still the only component that is regularly obtained and used. Therefore, instructor/instructional evaluation has become synonymous with student rating/evaluation for those being judged. In an attempt to impugn the value of such ratings for faculty self improvement and/or promotion and tenure purposes, faculty and administrators have generated and perpetuated several myths concerning student ratings of instructors and instruction. In order to address 15 of the most common myths regarding student ratings of instructors and instruction, research spanning a 62-year period will be cited and summarized below. Myth 1: Students cannot make consistent judgments about the instructor and instruction because of their immaturity, lack of experience, and capriciousness. Evidence dating back to 1924, according to Guthrie (1954), indicates just the opposite. The stability of student ratings from one year to the next resulted in substantial correlations in the range of 0.87 to 0.89. More recent literature on the subject, cited by Costin, Greenough, and Menges (1971), and studies by Gillmore (1973) and Hogan (1973) indicated that the correlation between student ratings of the same instructors and courses ranged from 0.70 to 0.87. Myth 2: Only colleagues with excellent publication records and expertise are qualified to teach and to evaluate their peers’ instruction.