Student Evaluations Of Teaching Research Articles

A neutral zone classifier for three classes with an application to text mining

AbstractA classifier may be limited by its conditional misclassification rates more than its overall misclassification rate. In the case that one or more of the conditional misclassification rates are high, a neutral zone may be introduced to decrease and possibly balance the misclassification rates. In this paper, a neutral zone is incorporated into a three‐class classifier with its region determined by controlling conditional misclassification rates. The neutral zone classifier is illustrated with a text mining application that classifies written comments associated with student evaluations of teaching.

Impact of Active Learning Approach on Students Evaluation of Teaching

Objective: The present study was designed to evaluate the extent to which students were benefited from active learning approach of teaching. It was intended to check the usefulness of whiteboard as a teaching medium instead of more commonly used audio-visual aids like PowerPoint. Method: It is a cross-sectional descriptive questionnaire-based study. Interactive teaching strategy was used instead of diagnostic lecture. Instructor used only whiteboard as a teaching medium encouraging interactivity. At the end of the session, 150 students filled the form which comprised of 12 statements regarding evaluation of the instructor. Students were supposed to respond to them according to 5-point Likertscale. Only students≥18 Years and those willing to fill the form were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included students not willing to fill the form and those returning incompletely filled forms. The reliability of form was checked using Cronbach's Alpha which came out to be 0.8 proving it to be reliable. Results: The average overall score for the proforma was 54.5±3.901 out of 60. This showed that there was more positive perception about the instructor than negative after employing active learning approach. Conclusion: From the results of thisstudy, it can be concluded that active learning approach using whiteboard along with enhanced student interactivity is an effective way of teaching

Student Evaluations of Teaching: Understanding Limitations and Advocating for a Gold Standard for Measuring Teaching Effectiveness

The arbitrator’s decision in Ryerson University v Ryerson Faculty Association [2018] CanLII 58446 (ON LA) rejected use of Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) for academic confirmation and promotion purposes. SETs provide largely quantitative data in response to pre-determined institutional, generic questions using a Likert scale applicable to all teaching modes. SETs may be efficient, but commonly low response rates mean the data is often statistically invalid. Studies of SETs suggest gender, age, race, and other biases are widespread, and they discourage teaching innovation because academics fear student backlash in SET scores. Consequently, SETs are of little value to academics for their professional development, confirmation or promotion, or as evidence for teaching grant or awards processes. The continuing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on traditional models of teaching has forced many changes in teaching, learning and pedagogy, often with a temporary suspension of SETs to allow teachers to innovate without negative impact on professional development measures. This presents a unique opportunity for us to revisit how the effectiveness of teaching and learning is measured. Academic teaching staff still need evidence of teaching effectiveness, as do sessional staff looking for continued employment and/or a career in academia. This paper discusses the strengths and weaknesses of SETs; seeks to equip law academics to advocate for other measures of teaching effectiveness that better reflect their contribution to student learning; and to pave the way for law discipline and institutional level changes that support a gold standard in measuring teaching effectiveness beyond reliance on SETs, for the benefit of teachers in law and other disciplines.

Effective teaching in computational thinking: A bias-free alternative to the exclusive use of students’ evaluations of teaching (SETs)

The tenure system in the United States places significant importance on teaching effectiveness. To date, students' evaluations of teaching (SETs) have been the reigning mechanism for assessing effective teaching. However, prior work has shown that SETs are often biased against underrepresented groups and minorities. The present study analyzes options for effective teaching assessments, which include evaluating final grades and measuring the differences between students’ pre- and post-tests (normalized gain) using standard instruments. The content area and the instrument used in this study originated in the computational thinking field, which has a widespread presence in engineering, where minorities are at a disadvantage. This study obtained a total of 88 student participants from four sections of an introductory engineering course at a Southwestern institution. The study utilized a computational thinking diagnostic (CTD) to inform the course teaching approach (the intervention). Results show that (a) normalized learning gains correlated moderately with SETs, (b) final grades correlated strongly with SETs, (c) final grades correlated strongly with normalized learning gains, (d) the educational intervention based on the CTD significantly affected student learning, and (e) SET comments affect evaluations. The implications include the notion that standardized instrument-driven instruction and evaluations can increase the success of minorities on both sides of the classroom. The purpose of this manuscript is to invite the Heliyon readership to get involved in the development of related instruments and to incorporate these measures of learning into their instruction so biases are avoided or minimized.

Student perspectives of online teaching: Lessons learned for the post-COVID classroom

As instructors return to in-person teaching and learning following online teaching during the COVID-19 pandemic, we can build from the experiences gained and incorporate various online resources into our campus-based classes. Drawing from student evaluations of teaching, a post-course student survey and learning management system (LMS) analytics, we documented students’ perspectives of online teaching and learning in a large introductory science course offered as a flipped classroom, and reflect on student and instructor perspectives as we return to campus-based teaching and learning. Results suggest that what students liked and what they perceived as effective often did not align, and that instructors need to consider good pedagogical practice when evaluating student comments. We identified strategies that we can carry forward to enhance our large introductory science course including a weekly course structure, synchronous classes and laboratories supported by asynchronous content, and taking advantage of recent advancements in online teaching and learning tools for discussion forums, practice exams and assessment.

EXAMINING STUDENTS’ EVALUATION OF SIGNIFICANT TEACHING CRITERIA AT THE MALAYSIAN DEFENCE UNIVERSITY

This paper used an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) method to inquire about student evaluations of teaching (SET) among a batch of foundation students. A total of 504 students completed the lecturer evaluation questionnaire at the end of the semester. The current study was prompted by several factors, including teaching quality, lecturer characteristics, personal traits, knowledge evaluation and students’ ratings which provided the impetus for the present study. Lecturers were evaluated using a Likert scale ranging from one to five, with the numbers labelled very poor, poor, medium, good, and excellent, respectively. Two phases of exploratory factor analysis conducted in the study to determine whether the importance ratings students regarded formed separate domains with the mean and the standard deviation of the questionnaire results. The first phase of exploratory factor analysis (Study 1) evaluated 23 criteria attributes listed by Vevere and Kozlinskis (2011). The attributes are seven personal trait items; 11 knowledge transfer items, followed by five knowledge evaluation items. Besides, participants were also asked to indicate any additional attributes they considered important to be possessed by their lecturers, the strand of the course they were enrolled in, and their gender. The purpose of the second study (Study 2) is to provide a contrast to the first study based on the data with an improved version of the SET instrument and with a different cohort of students. We discovered that all the proposed attributes of a lecturer were important to the students, and the categories proposed by Vevere and Kozlinskis (2011) for evaluating lecturers did not correspond to the importance of categories evaluated by the students.

Student Evaluations of Teaching Are Mostly Awfully Wrong

Student Evaluations of Teaching Are Mostly Awfully Wrong

Assessing the Effects of a Reformed System of Student Evaluation of Teaching

The importance of student evaluation of teaching (SET) in higher education has increased substantially in the past decades. Despite this increase, there is no consensus on the most efficient way of executing these surveys or about the questions. This study analyses the impact of an SET system reform on the distribution of the responses and the response rate. The reform impacted the questions, the scale used for evaluation, the anchor labels of the scale elements, and the incentives for students to fill out the survey. Our results show that the number of extreme responses increased after the reform, which can be due to the elimination of anchor labels of the middle scale points. Insufficient effort bias also increased; however, the new motivation system doubled the response rate, which helped to collect more representative sets of evaluations. Taking into consideration the relatively small increase in insufficient responses, we believe this incentive can be a valid choice for SET surveys.

Animated process-transparency in student evaluation of teaching: effects on the quality and quantity of student feedback

Low response rate and quality are common challenges when administrating student evaluations of teaching (SETs). This study aimed to increase SET response rate and quality by investigating a widely recommended strategy to overcome an underlying reason for students’ non-responsiveness, namely the lack of transparency about SET processes. In Study 1, we tested first-year students’ faith in SET before and after watching an animation that illustrated the SET process. Study 2 consisted of a quasi-experiment in an authentic setting among third-year students in which faith in SET, response rates and response quality were compared between students who were shown the animation versus a control group. Results showed that using an animation to increase transparency of SET processes increased students’ faith in SET in both Study (d = 0.60), and Study 2 (d = 0.29). The response rate on the Likert-scale questions in end-of-course surveys increased after the animation (Cramer’s V = 0.16), but no significant effects were found on response rates and quality on the open questions in the same survey (all p’s > 0.05). Further research and discussion are needed on how, and which, feasible interventions can help to improve students’ SET participation, such as offering guidance on how to provide feedback.

Discrimination against academics and career implications of student evaluations: university policy versus legal compliance

Across the international higher education sector, existing studies highlight that student evaluations of courses and teaching are biased and prejudiced towards academics and can cause mental distress. Yet student evaluation data is often used as part of faculty hiring, firing, promotion, award and grant decisions. That a data source known to be prejudiced and biased is used for employment and career decisions raises questions around whether these university policies are discriminatory towards university staff. This paper investigates these questions via an analysis of: a) what are the common university policies relating to evaluation data collection and its use, b) are these policies leaving academics exposed to discrimination, and c) what types of policies may be leaving universities liable to legal ramifications due to non-compliance with anti-discrimination and workplace health and safety laws? The work demonstrates why most institutions are operating outside the bounds of the law, highlights to academics what types of policies may fail to meet discrimination and workplace laws, and informs university leaders of the actions that may be exposing their universities to legal implications for failing to protect their staff.

Perceptions and attitudes of medical students towards student evaluation of teaching: A cross-sectional study

ABSTRACT Background Faculty evaluation surveys in the frame of student evaluation of teaching (SETs) are a widely utilized tool to assess faculty teaching. Although SETs are used regularly to evaluate teaching effectiveness, their sole use for making administrative decisions and as an indicator of teaching quality has been controversial. Methods A survey containing 22 items assessing demographics, perceptions, and factors for evaluating faculty was distributed to medical students at our institute. Statistical analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel and R Software utilizing regression analysis and ANOVA tests. Results The survey received 374 responses, consisting of 191 (51.1%) male students and 183 (48.9%) female students. In all, 178 (47.5%) students considered the optimal time for providing faculty evaluation to be after the release of the exam results, compared to 127 (33.9%) students, who chose the after the exam but before the release of exam results option. When asked what happens whenever the tutor is aware of the SETs data, 273 (72.9%) and 254 (67.9%) students believed that it would influence the difficulty of the exam and the grading/curving of the exam results, respectively. Better teaching skills (93%, 348), being responsive and open to student feedback and suggestions (84.7%, 317), being committed to class time and schedule (80.1%, 300), and an easier exam (68.6%, 257) were considered important factors to acquire a positive evaluation by a considerable proportion of students. Fewer lectures (p < 0.05), decreased number of slides per lecture (p < 0.01), easier exam (p < 0.05), and giving clues to students about the exam (p < 0.05) were found to be very important to obtain a positive tutor evaluation by students. Conclusions Institutions ought to continue exploring areas for improvement in the faculty evaluation process while raising awareness among students about the importance and administrative implications of their feedback.

ЄВРОІНТЕГРАЦІЙНИЙ ВИМІР МОДЕРНІЗАЦІЇ ПРОФЕСІЙНОЇ ПІДГОТОВКИ МАЙБУТНІХ ПЕДАГОГІВ У НАУКОВІЙ СПАДЩИНІ АКАДЕМІКА ОЛЕКСАНДРИ САВЧЕНКО

In her research work, O. Savchenko identified new conceptual foundations of pedagogical education related to its European integration processes: reforming the content of professional training of future teachers in the context of school education innovations and higher education standardization processes; introduction of the humanistic paradigm of education and upbringing of students; design of the individual educational trajectory of the applicants; implementation of a competence-oriented model of education in pedagogical higher education institutions. The scientist emphasized special attention on personally oriented professional education, designing the individual trajectory of professional development of each student during the of his studies. Unfortunately, this leading idea was not sufficiently implemented in practice for a long time. And only in modern conditions do we realize that the transition of university education to a student-centered model is becoming a through line of changes. This is reflected both in the development of educational programs based on the requests of education seekers, and in their more active involvement in the design of their studies, the creation of opportunities for choosing and constructing individual educational trajectories, and the development of a system of independent student evaluation of teachers' activities. In the scientific heritage of O. Savchenko, the problem of the formation of the «ability to learn» in future teachers, which she considered a meta-skill, is highlighted. The scientist claimed that mastery of this skill programs the acquisition of individual experience to become a successful teacher who knows how to prevent overloading of students, rationally use time, calmly and stress-free navigate in various life situations, independently search for sources of information, ways to solve non-standard problems. And in general, the ability to learn, according to O. Savchenko, changes the style of thinking, determines the ability to learn throughout life, creates guidelines for long-term and personally important learning incentives. The analysis of academician O. Savchenko's scientific heritage allows us to state that the scientist actively studied the experience of training future teachers in European countries. She had a unique ability to see better than others the examples of European practices of training future teachers and to submit her own ideas for their implementation in higher education institutions. The works of the famous pedagogue are an example of a successful combination of general theoretical provisions with practice, which testifies to high scientific achievements in the Ukrainian educational space. Key words: professional training of future primary school teachers, academician Oleхandra Savchenko's scientific heritage, European integration dimension, scientific achievements of an outstanding pedagogue.

Evaluating and Improving the Formative Use of Student Evaluation of Teaching

Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) are a ubiquitous tool in higher education. Though they are not effective means of evaluating teaching ability, they are useful in formative teaching development of a teaching career. We characterise the current formative use of and attitudes towards SETs by instructors across all disciplines (STEM and non-STEM). We found that tenured instructors used SETs for formative development more than untenured, and that non-STEM instructors had more negative associations with SETs than STEM instructors. Based upon these data, we make recommendations to redesign the SET instrument and change the way in which the data are used to support formative teaching development.

The Relationship between Professors’ Motivation and Interpersonal Behaviour Styles in the Classroom, and Course Evaluations

Professors create a positive learning environment for students through their interpersonal behaviour style in the classroom. High quality interpersonal interactions are associated with a number of positive student outcomes such as increased motivation, effort, learning, satisfaction, and higher ratings on formal student evaluations of teaching (SETs). This study tested a Self-Determination Theory model in a university setting by measuring the association between professors’ reported psychological need satisfaction, teaching motivation, and self-reported supportive interpersonal behaviour styles, exploring how these variables related to SETs. Overall, we found support for the model; all relationships were significant and in the expected direction except that reported autonomy and competence supportive behaviours did not relate to SETs. From this, we can conclude that relatedness support is important to the student experience and that professors who engage in relatedness supportive interpersonal behaviours are also positively evaluated by their students.

Evaluation of student teachers' beliefs about Science Teaching

Evaluation of student teachers' beliefs about Science Teaching

A Critical Look at Student Evaluations of Teaching

Student evaluations of teaching are used at many schools and colleges of pharmacy as the primary, often exclusive, means of assessing the quality of instruction and instructor performance. As such, they can be pivotal in annual performance evaluations and rank and tenure decisions. However, serious concerns have been raised about these ubiquitous surveys and how, or even if, they should be used to measure the quality of instruction or the performance of the instructor. This commentary discusses concerns that have been raised about using student evaluations of teaching scores to assess teaching performance and offers recommendations for how they can be better interpreted and used in schools and colleges of pharmacy.

Major increases in teachers’ performance evaluations: Evidence from student evaluation of teaching surveys

Purpose: This exploratory study examined major increases in teachers’ performance evaluations and their immediate impact on next year’s score for those instructors that taught the same subject for at least two years in a row. The purpose was twofold. Firstly, to identify those Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) survey items associated with major increases in teacher evaluations. Secondly, to examine if there is evidence of the use of these SET results by instructors to improve their teaching.Design: The sample comprised SET survey ratings from one university over a five consecutive year period, for a total sample of 13,052 teacher evaluations and 3,893 teachers-subject observations under analysis. Frequency tables and Student’s t-test were used for analysis.Findings: The results highlighted the three SET survey items captured by the dimension of teaching methodology as those most closely related to major increases in teacher evaluations. Regarding the second objective, the results show no generalised response from teachers who experience major increases in SET ratings. This suggests that the use of SET results is either limited or does not have an immediate measurable effect on student satisfaction.Originality/Value: To the best of our knowledge, this was the first study to specifically examine major increases in teachers’ performance evaluations and their immediate impact on next year’s score based on evidence from SET surveys.&#x0D; Received: 22 December 2021Accepted: 26 February 2023

Introduction

The papers in this Edition of the Journal comprise nine papers, of which three are related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Together, the papers address the perceptions and experiences of students and their teachers, demonstrating where the views/conceptual understandings of students and their teachers align, where they do not and where stress factors have had an impact. The papers reflect a varied range of participant countries both in terms of the authors, but perhaps more importantly the study sites (Cuba, The Czech Republic, Germany, India, Mexico, Philippines, Slovakia, Spain, and Turkey). Similarly, the programmes of study included Engineering, Mathematics, Tourism, foreign languages, social sciences, and education.Consequently, the methodologies and methods are appropriately diverse, ranging from social network theory, mixed methods, qualitative research complex statistical analyses, evaluation scales like COPE, Hedperf, student evaluations of teaching, student engagement, and Sojkin’s instrument to evaluate the influences upon first- and second-generation university students. The authors have also generated some very informative literature reviews outlining the evidence base and the related conceptual and theoretical issues in their respective fields. While some studies had small samples, their findings may have important feedback for local educational service improvement, even if generalizability could not be claimed, readers may find utility in face validity. The papers also remind us that educational research is challenging, whether in the handling of small cohorts, the complexity of the issues under study or the application of sophisticated measuring tools. None the less, evaluation, audit, practitioner research or large scale studies are all necessary activities if we are to improve our understandings of (1) ourselves as educators/researchers; (2) our students with their motivations, interests and capabilities; (3) the system infrastructures that hinder or support the educational endeavours; and of course, (4) the efficacy of the pedagogies for a given cohort, in a specific programme in a cultural context.

Students’ evaluations of native and non-native teachers in higher education

Student evaluations of teachers (SETs) are often used to evaluate teachers’ performance in higher education. However, several factors unrelated to performance can lead to biased SETs. The present experimental research was designed to examine whether native or non-native teachers could be evaluated differently by students in higher education. In two studies, students were presented with short vignettes of either a native or non-native teacher. Subsequently, explicit evaluations and implicit associations of the teacher and the assignments of the teacher were registered. Additionally, participants’ implicit in-group favouritism was assessed to examine whether possible differences in evaluations depend on implicit biases. Both explicit evaluations and implicit associations did not significantly differ depending on whether the teacher was native or non-native, and no significant effect of implicit in-group bias was found. Possible theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Distributional properties of the statistic of online student evaluations the mean does not mean what you think it means

ABSTRACT Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) are an integral part of evaluating course outcomes. They are routinely used to evaluate teaching quality for the purposes of reappointment, promotion, and tenure (RPT), annual review, and the rehiring of adjunct faculty and lecturers. These evaluations are often based almost entirely on the mean or proportion of the ordinal overall score with no regard to statistical noise. This study examines the distribution of the statistic (mean or proportion) when SETs are administered online and in-person. Using non-parametric procedures, we show that the size of the 95% confidence interval of the statistic is a function of response rates. Prior to COVID-19, online administration of SETs resulted in significantly more uncertainty than in-person administration because the in-person response rates were higher. Due to a decrease in in-person response rates in the post-COVID vaccine period, both methods result in significant levels of uncertainty of the true statistic value. In classes of fewer than 30 students, the 95% confidence interval of the statistic is wide enough for instructors to be considered for a teaching award in one semester or below average in another semester, while holding teaching quality constant.