Search results

This chapter offers a discussion of the increasingly widespread use of student evaluations in higher education. It critiques the extent to which these student evaluations are now regarded by governments and higher education management as an authoritative source of information on all aspects of HE provision, with a particular focus on their use to rank and evaluate teaching excellence through the Teaching Excellence Framework. It provides an overview of research looking into how student perceptions of teachers' teaching excellence, or otherwise, play out very differently depending on the gender, age and social class of the lecturers doing the teaching. This chapter argues that these differences make it difficult to ensure that students' assessment of higher education teaching are fair and/or consistent with regard to the teaching they are experiencing across different courses, disciplines and institutions. It concludes that acknowledging how inequalities will inevitably play a part in any evaluative processes is a more productive way of thinking about how more informed indices of teaching quality might be more usefully understood and operationalised in higher education. This approach, however, requires HEI's to recognise the ways in which existing racialised, sexualised and gendered patterns reoccur and sustain inequalities currently in the UK higher education sector. (199)

Most universities have relied on student evaluations as a source of evidence in their assessment of teaching performance. However, a complete evaluation of all dimensions of a faculty member's teaching requires multiple sources of evidence. The purpose of this chapter is to identify the sources of evidence that accounting chairs report they currently use to assess teaching. Calderon and Green first examined this issue in their 1997 study. However, their results may be outdated due to changes in accreditation requirements, teaching delivery methods, and the continued evolution of assessment tools. Responding department chairs report that peer observation followed by course syllabus, exams given in class, and instructor course notes are the most frequently used evidence types, with an average of 3.16 sources beyond student evaluations. The source and quantity of evidence vary across different types of institutions. While Calderon and Green reported that most schools use ad hoc and subjective sources of evidence, respondents in this study focus more on instructor-supplied materials and direct evidence from inside the classroom.

Evaluation is the process by which we estimate how things should go, explore how things are going, and determine how things went in terms of course redesign. In this chapter, we examine formative and summative methods for assessing student learning and establishing teacher effectiveness and course quality. Evaluation is a subjective, value-laden process. To introduce the rigor needed to make it meaningful, evaluation should be multifaceted, planned in advance, made transparent to learners, and employ valid and reliable methods. Moving courses online presents both opportunities and challenges for evaluation. We explore ways to implement assessment to make full use of the advantages of technology while mitigating the problems associated with online delivery.

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are the most frequent form of faculty performance in the classroom, though they tend to be used as summative rather than formative evaluations. In this chapter, a project involving the use of a virtual learning environment for formative, weekly SETs is explored from both the student and faculty point of view at a rural university college in the United Kingdom. This project encouraged student participation in creating the learning environment and faculty reflection on how to improve the student experience. From the student perspective, the weekly anonymous evaluations were useful for providing feedback; however, students tended to only respond if they were not satisfied with the faculty member. The exception to this was that some students were more motivated to complete the evaluation forms if they believed the faculty member was utilising their feedback. From the faculty perspective, the feedback was not as detailed as they had expected, and some questioned whether it was worth the effort of conducting formative evaluations if the response rate was so low. Others used the feedback for reflective purposes, and it was found that those that reflected on their work at higher levels tended to receive a greater year-on-year increase in their end of year teaching evaluations.

In this chapter, the author builds from foundational scholarship which suggests that service-learning yields positive outcomes for students, faculty, and community partners. The author first suggests that service-learning can be a vehicle for humanizing community partners as well as students, faculty, and course content, then describes a program evaluation context wherein community partners would benefit from a humanizing service-learning experience. The author then introduces the field of program evaluation and the foundational documents espoused by the American Evaluation Association, and looks at the organizational structure of the Department of Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities, which houses the Evaluation Studies specialization. Next, the author presents a foundational program evaluation course, discussing its emphasis on service-learning and on humanizing the students, community partners, and course content, and introducing the textbooks, readings, and activities used to bring the experience to life. The author concludes by looking at opportunities and challenges to integrating program evaluation into a departmental core at other universities.

Current First-year Writing research seeks to address the need to help students meet the Council of Writing Program Administrators objectives on source evaluation while also changing current pedagogy methods. This chapter seeks to compare two different source evaluation pedagogies, YSearch and decision-based learning, taught by Brigham Young University’s library, to determine which one-shot library instruction session module is more effective at teaching students source evaluation skills. To answer these questions, this study uses both quantitative and qualitative methods, utilizing a quasi-experimental, pre-test/post-test design by conducting an open comparison between the two pedagogy modules. Students scored significantly higher on the post-test in both designs and differences between the two increases weren’t statistically significant, showing that both treatments are effective. Follow-up interviews explored the differences between treatments.

Because of the potential cost savings that online teaching evaluations can deliver, many universities are converting their student evaluations of teaching to this mode of administration. In this study, we examine the effects of transitioning administration of student evaluations from paper-and-pencil to online. We use data from accounting and other departments in the College of Business Administration of a large private, research university that converted from paper to online administration of teaching evaluations. We examine the average teaching effectiveness rating and response rate for instructors who taught the same course before and after the conversion. In addition, we survey a sample of accounting students to investigate their responses to online teaching evaluations. We find a significant increase in the average effectiveness rating and a significant decrease in response rate. Furthermore, we find that those instructors with lower ratings under the paper administration experience the greatest increase in ratings when the evaluations are converted to online administration. In a follow-up survey, we find that students who are highly motivated and have higher grade point averages are more likely to complete and provide higher evaluations with the online administration. We discuss the implications of our results to accounting and business education literature.

There is a strong body of research that indicates that teacher quality has a stronger effect on student learning than any other school-based factor. At the same time, most teacher evaluation systems have traditionally failed to distinguish among different levels of teacher effectiveness or to link evaluation results to professional development in meaningful ways. In this chapter, we compare teacher responses in S. Korea and the United States to evaluation policies. We provide initial evidence that teachers and principals in Seoul defined “effective teachers” as those who helped manage their schools in areas such as affairs/planning, curriculum/instruction, science and technology, discipline, and extra-curricular activities. In contrast, the Michigan teachers and principals in the study were more likely to view effective teachers as those who planned instruction to meet student needs and provided evidence of student engagement and learning. In addition, educators’ notions of effective teachers seemed related to their responses to new teacher evaluation policies. In particular, the teachers in Seoul strongly resisted the new teacher evaluation policies while their counterparts in Michigan either supported the new evaluation policies or at least did not actively resist them. These differences seemed related to regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive elements associated with the teacher evaluation policies in the jurisdictions where the teachers and principals worked.

This chapter shares ideas about how to encourage students to take responsibility for their individual learning and their role as a team member through the use of team contracts and peer evaluations. We also share how instructors can more easily determine individual grades for team projects. Team contracts can help instill a sense of responsibility, encourage accountability, and add structure by promoting the clarification of task-specific roles. In conjunction with team contracts, peer evaluations can reinforce the responsibilities assigned through the contract. Peer evaluations provide an opportunity for students to objectively and thoughtfully evaluate team member contributions to the collective result and reward individual participants more equitably related to the outcome obtained.

The chapter provides discussion and examples of student-developed team contracts and a sample peer evaluation form along with a discussion of how these documents have been used in the classroom. Using responses from a convenience survey of undergraduate and graduate students, we conclude by examining student feedback to suggest patterns of the perceptions of students toward the use of these tools.