THE VALIDITY OF STUDENT EVALUATION OF TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Student evaluation of teaching is a global predominant practice in higher education institutions. Therefore, a major university in Jordan developed a questionnaire for students’ use in evaluating their instructors’ teaching effectiveness. Since student evaluation of teaching is an important process, the present study tried to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument. Item-total correlations showed acceptable internal consistency. In addition, a two-factor structure of the scale (teaching effectiveness and course attributes) was supported by exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis from two independent samples. Convergent validity was supported by a moderate correlation coefficient between course averages of students’ ratings on the first factor and course averages of students’ final grades in each course. Finally, students’ responses on the factor that captures teaching effectiveness were found to have very high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.96). However, this instrument lacks evidences of content validity and convergent validity. Therefore, it is important to be cautious in evaluating faculty members and making promotion decisions that is based solely on the scores obtained using this instrument.

Download Full-text

Lessons Learned from Research on Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education

Student Feedback on Teaching in Schools ◽

10.1007/978-3-030-75150-0_15 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 237-256

Author(s):

Bob Uttl

Keyword(s):

Higher Education ◽

Effective Teaching ◽

Teaching Effectiveness ◽

Student Evaluation ◽

High Stakes ◽

Student Evaluation Of Teaching ◽

Knowledge Class ◽

Teaching Awards ◽

Student Preference ◽

Evaluation Of Teaching

AbstractIn higher education, anonymous student evaluation of teaching (SET) ratings are used to measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness and to make high-stakes decisions about hiring, firing, promotion, merit pay, and teaching awards. SET have many desirable properties: SET are quick and cheap to collect, SET means and standard deviations give aura of precision and scientific validity, and SET provide tangible seemingly objective numbers for both high-stake decisions and public accountability purposes. Unfortunately, SET as a measure of teaching effectiveness are fatally flawed. First, experts cannot agree what effective teaching is. They only agree that effective teaching ought to result in learning. Second, SET do not measure faculty’s teaching effectiveness as students do not learn more from more highly rated professors. Third, SET depend on many teaching effectiveness irrelevant factors (TEIFs) not attributable to the professor (e.g., students’ intelligence, students’ prior knowledge, class size, subject). Fourth, SET are influenced by student preference factors (SPFs) whose consideration violates human rights legislation (e.g., ethnicity, accent). Fifth, SET are easily manipulated by chocolates, course easiness, and other incentives. However, student ratings of professors can be used for very limited purposes such as formative feedback and raising alarm about ineffective teaching practices.

Download Full-text