Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
caution” (Cashin, 1990). Likewise, so would any course in which the response rate was less than half of the enrollment. • Improved student learning or students’ perception that they have “learned a lot in the class” improve the ratings. Since a primary purpose for teaching is student learning, there is also a high positive correlation between student ratings and student learning (Javakhishvili, 2009). • Evaluation forms on which low ratings are given without explanation, or where the complaints are directed at the professor's beliefs, the harshness of the grading, the difficulty of the course, or the professor's personal characteristics (such as physical appearance, clothing style, or personality) might be discounted (Huemer, 2001). • Students appreciate instructors who know what they are talking about and who also care about them (Ory 2001). It is commonly believed that that good entertainers receive higher ratings than do less showy but better instructors. However, students normally define excellence in teaching using a criterion expressed in the phrase, “hardness of head and softness of heart” (Goldsmid, Gruber, & Wilson, 1977). Purpose of the Study Given that course evaluations are widely used and often misinterpreted, it is important that studies be conducted to demonstrate the accuracy and consistency of these evaluations. National University (NU) has been using a comprehensive system of student evaluations for many years. The system was recently revised to incorporate instructional changes at NU (e.g., more online classes) and to update the student-rating categories to reflect a wider range of student concerns. In particular, the new system now has students rating the effectiveness of the technology used in online classes and allows the student to rate not only the instructor (assessment of teaching) but also the course content and a self-assessment of learning. The study examines the reliability and validly of these ratings and performs a comparative analysis across types of classes (online, onsite, etc.), student level (undergraduate versus graduate), different schools/colleges, and faculty ranks. Method Course evaluation data were supplied from the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment from July 2007 to February 2008. Every class that was taught at the university during this time frame was evaluated by a total of 32,393 students (many students evaluated multiple classes so the data do not reflect 32,393 unique individuals). The data set included information on the following variables: course, month taught, school/college, department, type of class (online, onsite, web-based), campus, level (undergraduate versus graduate), enrollment, response rate, faculty rank, class gradepoint average (GPA), and a rating for each of the 30 items for which the students were asked to respond. The items that the students rated fell into five general categories: (a) student self-assessment of learning (7 items), (b) student assessment of instruction 176
Page 2 and 3:
Journal of Research in Innovative T
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Editor’s Column
Page 6 and 7:
Editor’s Column National Universi
Page 8 and 9:
training-based method for integrati
Page 10 and 11:
The Editorial Board invites the rea
Page 12 and 13:
The Influence of Social Worlds on E
Page 14 and 15:
experience in a strong group settin
Page 16 and 17:
Table 1 Example Scenario of a Burea
Page 18 and 19:
hierarchy ensures a social position
Page 20 and 21:
(see Figure 5). Each member is affo
Page 22 and 23:
through four types of instructional
Page 24 and 25:
Hierarchic (high grid, strong Group
Page 26 and 27:
Figure 10. Didactic Task Structure
Page 28 and 29:
Stansberry, S., & Harris, E. (2005)
Page 30 and 31:
Utilizing current research-based co
Page 32 and 33:
teachers. The instructor kept a mas
Page 34 and 35:
References Coburn, C. E. (2001). Co
Page 36 and 37:
Organizing for Instruction Carefull
Page 38 and 39:
Accelerated Learning 33
Page 40 and 41:
the learning process but rather to
Page 42 and 43:
Csikszentmihalyi (1982) has written
Page 44 and 45:
term (intersession) gets its name b
Page 46 and 47:
Some Important Issues Scott and Con
Page 48 and 49:
esponsibilities). A higher percenta
Page 50 and 51:
them in such a way that the likelih
Page 52 and 53:
makes a valuable contribution to ou
Page 54 and 55:
North American Association of Summe
Page 56 and 57:
E-learning 51
Page 58 and 59:
Academic Learning Today Academic in
Page 60 and 61:
In the original publication by the
Page 62 and 63:
• Individual (1) — Group (2) co
Page 64 and 65:
Challenges and Opportunities From t
Page 66 and 67:
About the Authors Cynthia (Cindy) L
Page 68 and 69:
AGILE TEACHING: A CASE STUDY OF USI
Page 70 and 71:
the scope-by-name feature of Ruby e
Page 72 and 73:
need to deal with. Students learned
Page 74 and 75:
experiment with different options f
Page 76 and 77:
the students evaluate the optimum s
Page 78 and 79:
Using Bibliotherapy as a Tool for C
Page 80 and 81:
different clients and their present
Page 82 and 83:
supervisees with a brief synopsis o
Page 84 and 85:
Stick Figure, by Lori Gottlieb As t
Page 86 and 87:
psychological awareness to encourag
Page 88 and 89:
on the Internet. To keep the classr
Page 90 and 91:
The third portion of the discussion
Page 92 and 93:
Henry, S. (2005). A different appro
Page 94 and 95:
elementary-age students. Linked wit
Page 96 and 97:
considered in multicultural literat
Page 98 and 99:
In Finding One, the conclusion was
Page 100 and 101:
Stephanie: “I learned that some p
Page 102 and 103:
importance in society and in school
Page 104 and 105:
published in the United States. Ret
Page 106 and 107:
Reading Practices in Elementary Sch
Page 108 and 109:
groups of students reading by apply
Page 110 and 111:
Table 2 Participant-Reported Teachi
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5A Teachers’ Reading Task P
Page 114 and 115:
Because electronic texts are increa
Page 116 and 117:
Conclusion As teachers work to impr
Page 118 and 119:
Bilingual Education and Second Lang
Page 120 and 121:
successful in hiring enough qualifi
Page 122 and 123:
Five Innovative Strategies That Wor
Page 124 and 125:
The third strategy is “Determinin
Page 126 and 127:
the categories, synthesized and def
Page 128 and 129:
Fereshteh, M. H. (1995). Multicultu
Page 130 and 131: Can Balanced Bilingualism Be Achiev
Page 132 and 133: As may be seen from this discussion
Page 134 and 135: Alternatives to Current Methodologi
Page 136 and 137: education when students are isolate
Page 138 and 139: Conclusion SL learning must be a tw
Page 140 and 141: Language as Tool for a Global Educa
Page 142 and 143: encouraging passive learning. Such
Page 144 and 145: Similarly, their actions or what go
Page 146 and 147: should therefore not be glued to th
Page 148 and 149: Supplementary Reading Since there i
Page 150 and 151: Bruce, M. G., Podemski, R. S., & An
Page 152 and 153: • Sentence combination (using con
Page 154 and 155: The Motivational and Attitudinal Ch
Page 156 and 157: Other researchers have challenged t
Page 158 and 159: education classes were taught in Ru
Page 160 and 161: Participants also described how the
Page 162 and 163: Implications and Suggestions for Fu
Page 164 and 165: National University Carlsbad, CA Em
Page 166 and 167: Assessment and Evaluation 161
Page 168 and 169: affordance of opportunities for sel
Page 170 and 171: An examination of the peer-comment
Page 172 and 173: language used in the description an
Page 174 and 175: promotes self-discovery (Saulnier e
Page 176 and 177: Appendix A Sample Language from an
Page 178 and 179: Student Evaluations of Courses and
Page 182 and 183: (teaching) for all classes (11 item
Page 184 and 185: Figure 1. The Nonlinear Relationshi
Page 186 and 187: About the Authors Nataliya Serdyuko
Page 188 and 189: Best Practices 183
Page 190 and 191: The Textbook Elementary Statistics
Page 192 and 193: If the mean number of visits was as
Page 194 and 195: discussion in such courses is slow;
Page 196 and 197: Table 1. A grade list for a class o
Page 198 and 199: Sloboda, B. W. (2005). Improving th
Page 200 and 201: The Journal of Research in Innovati
Page 202: About the Author In the end of your
show all

Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?