EXTENDING THE DOMAIN
OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS ASSESSMENT
 
PART II: BRIEF SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF BACKGROUND LITERATURE REVIEW
 
 
We are grateful for the $4800 Rutgers University Teaching and Curriculum Evaluation grant to Dr. Ronald E. Rice, Dr. Lea Stewart, Dr. Linda Lederman, and Dr. Brent Ruben, awarded by Dr. Susan Forman, Office of the Vice President for Undergraduate Education, 18 Bishop Place, College Ave. Campus.
 
HOME CONTENTS PAGE
(lists table of contents of each part)
 
PART I: OVERVIEW AND RESULTS
 
PART III: SELECTED READINGS SUMMARIZED
 
 
RONALD E. RICE
 
 
Initial reading summaries by
 
MICHELE HUJBER
 
October, 1998
 
 
CONTENTS
 
1. Introduction
2. Instructional Dimensions
3. How Dimensions Are Related to Student Learning
4. How Student Evaluations of Teaching Compare to Others' Evaluations of Teaching
5. Factors That Do And Do Not Influence Rations
6. Effective Uses of Students Evaluations
 
1. INTRODUCTION
 
While student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are a generally accepted evaluation tool at institutions of higher education, they do not fulfill all of an institution’s needs for constituent evaluation. Undergraduate alumni of the institution are unique among external stakeholders in that they have been participant observers in the classroom and have applied the results of that experience in a non-undergraduate academic environment.
 
 2. INSTRUCTIONAL DIMENSIONS
 
Several reviews of the literature and analyses have identified the following dimensions of instructional evaluation, generally in order of decreasing importance to students:
  Other than the surveys which are used to ask about institution-wide broad indicators of excellence, there is no organized body of knowledge about what alumni have to contribute to an evaluation of the actual teaching practices of the faculty of their alma mater.
 
3. HOW DIMENSIONS ARE RELATED TO STUDENT LEARNING
 
The research shows that there are links between the teaching dimensions that are currently used in SETs to evaluate teaching and the actual learning of students. The various dimensions contribute to learning through combinations of the following mediating processes: Aids information processing; Fosters self-worth; Organizes content; and Enhances perceived control. The research concludes that, while any one teaching dimension cannot ensure student achievement, there is a definite link between what a teacher does in the classroom and what the student learns.
 
 4. HOW STUDENT EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING COMPARE TO OTHERS' EVALUATIONS OF TEACHING
 
While it is recommended that multiple sources of evaluation be used, each of which can provide a slightly different perspective (and, as in the case of alumni, quite possibly add to the available data), it is also true that the conclusions of each source of evaluation should be fundamentally in agreement with the other. If they are not, at least one of the sources of information is invalid. The research supports the conclusion that, except for peer evaluations, each of the other sources of evaluations (instructors, alumni, trained observers) reinforce evaluations elicited from other sources. However, consistently large differences occur in the following areas: students place greater importance on teachers being interesting and having good communication skills, and on outcomes of instruction, while faculty place more importance on being intellectually challenging, motivating and setting high standards, and encouraging self-initiated learning.
 
5. FACTORS THAT DO AND DO NOT INFLUENCE RATINGS
 
Researchers have analyzed potential biases and shed some light on the actual (or nonexistent) relationships between the bias as justified (defining it as a non-bias) or unjustified (defining it as a genuine bias) and SETs. There is general agreement that class size, workload/difficulty, prior subject interest, expected grades, and reason for taking a course may constitute little or no relationship to SETs. Potential biases considered to be minor are instructor rank and years of teaching experience, course level, sex of students and/or instructor, administration and stated purpose of ratings, academic discipline, and personality of the instructor. Those factors that have been investigated as potential sources of bias but have been shown to not influence student ratings are the instructor's research productivity and the length of time between taking the course and evaluating the teacher.
 
 6. EFFECTIVE USES OF STUDENT EVALUATIONS
 
SETs can help a teacher to target areas for self-improvement. The research also shows that, with the help of a trained consultant, SETs can be even more effective as tools to improve teaching. Timing is also a factor: optimally, feedback is gathered, reviewed, and acted upon halfway through a semester, so that improvements will be reflected in the final evaluations of the same class by the same students.

SETs can also be used effectively for administrative decisions, but they must be used judiciously. Unfortunately, when SETs are being used for administrative decisions, they are more likely to have a negative effect than a positive effect upon the resulting administrative decisions.

SETs are underused as information for students to use in the selection of courses. The small amount of research that has been done on this topic indicates that students do use this information when it is available, and that when they do, they are more likely to be satisfied with the courses they have chosen.

The use of SETs can be beneficial to the institution as a whole. The process of creating, administering, evaluating, and using instruments for evaluation of teaching opens up within the institution a dialogue that clarifies the mission and goals of the institution.
 

Top of Page