Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

that there is a consistent positively correlation between student evaluations and student
performance as measured by exams, grades, etc. (see Cashin, 1990; Huemer, 1990).
Thus, the evidence suggests that student evaluations of instruction provide
valuable information. Nonetheless, Rice (2009) cautions that “student evaluations have
their limits. They should never be the only means of evaluating faculty members . . . and
faculty members who actually want to become better teachers—and who believe that
good teaching skills are not bequeathed to them in perpetuity with the awarding of a
Ph.D.—should read them over and over again. We cannot see ourselves as others see us .
. . They enable academe to maintain quality instruction in the classroom and, equally
important, to sustain a conversation about teaching.”
Hoover-Dempsey (2009) goes on to add: “analyze the information . . . look for
patterns in students’ comments—identify trends, note what you have done well and what
needs improvement.”
The literature on student evaluations is vast and complex, and many subtle
relationships and interactions are embedded in the data. Research has shown that certain
disciplines tend to be rated more highly than others. Arts and humanities courses, for
instance, are rated higher than social sciences and biological sciences, which are rated
higher than business and computer sciences, followed by mathematics, engineering, and
physical sciences (Javakhishvili, 2009). Javakhishvili further claims that if a student does
not have interest in subject but takes the class because it is required, she or he might give
a lower score to a professor than a student who is very much interested in a class that he
or she has taken. It is reasonable, therefore, to suggest that the more difficult the subject
matter and the less motivated the student, the lower the evaluation an instructor should
expect.
A common criticism of student evaluations is that students tend to give higher
ratings when they expect higher grades in the course (Cashin, 1990). Thus, student
evaluations seem to be as much a measure of an instructor's leniency in grading as they
are of teaching effectiveness (Huemer, 1990). Many believe that this is a cause of grade
inflation (Goldman, 1985). Another criticism is that student evaluations encourage
professors to dumb down courses in an effort to keep students happy at all costs (Ryan,
Anderson, & Birchler, 1980), which results in lower academic rigor and decreased
learning outcomes. This argument is supported by Ory & Ryan (2001), who suggest that
among the unintended consequences of student evaluations are (a) instructors alter their
teaching in order to receive high ratings (lower content difficulty, provide less content,
give only high grades), and (b) students reward poor teaching by believing they can give
high ratings in return for high grades. If this is indeed the typical situation, it
compromises academic rigor and instructional quality.
In addition to what has already been discussed, the literature reveals a few other
important facts about student course evaluations that are critical to accurate interpretation
and use of the information:
• Centra and Creech (1976) found that smaller classes have higher ratings.
Normally, smaller classes with fewer than 15 students tend to have higher
ratings than larger classes.
• Results with low response rates should be treated with caution. If there are
fewer than 10 responses, the data need to “be interpreted with particular
175