The evaluation of lecturers and students as perceived by both

Abstract

The goal of the study was to investigate the attitudes of lecturers (71 from various academic institutions in Israel) and students (138 from the University center in Ariel) regarding the process of evaluation of both — the lecturers and the students.

The subjects responded to a questionnaire, composed by the investigator, consisting of two parts. The first one investigates the attitudes towards the evaluation of the lecturers and the second one — the attitudes towards the evaluation of the students. Both parts include five point scale questionnaires. In addition each part has an open ended question, asking the subjects to choose the five most preferable criteria for evaluating both — the lecturers and the students from lists of characteristics.

Through the use of t² and χ² the responses of the lecturers and the students were compared. In general the students exhibit more agreement with most of the attitudes regarding the evaluation of the lecturer (those stating the relationships with the students). In contrast to the lecturers, the students assign great importance to the preparation for their future careers, while the lecturers, unlike the students, assign great importance to the development of thinking.

No clear tendency is seen in the case of the attitudes towards the evaluation of the students. Though both the students and the lecturers don't assign to research skills the utmost importance, the lecturers assign to it significantly much more importance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aigner

D. J.

Thum

F.D.

, (1986). On student evaluation of teaching ability. Journal of Economic Education, 17, 243–266.

Airasian

(1991). Classroom assessment, New-York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Calderon

T.G.

, (1996). Report of the Committee on Promoting and Evaluating Effective Teaching. Harrison, VA: Center for Research in Accounting Education, James Madison University.

Chonko

L. J.F.

, (2002). What are they thinking? Students' expectations and self-assessments. Journal of Education for Business, 77(5), 271–282.

Crooks

, (1996). Threats to the valid use of assessments, Assessment in Education, 3 (5), 265–285.

Decanio

S.J.

(1986). Student evaluation of teaching — a multi-nominal logit approach. Journal of Economic Education, 17,165–176.

Fisher

A. T.

, (1998). Lecturing performance appraisal criteria: Staff and student differences. Australian Journal of Education, 42,153–168.

Gramlich

E. M.

Greenlee

G.A.

, (1993). Measuring teaching performance. Journal of Economic Education, 24, 3–12.

Gullickson

(1993). Matching measurement instruction to classroom-based evaluation: Perceived discrepancies, needs, and challenges. In: Coloney

, ed. Teacher training in measurement and assessment skills, Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

10.

Gullickson

A.R.

, (2005). Student evaluation standards: A paradigm shift for the evaluation of students. Prospects, 35(2), 213–227.

11.

Hativa

, (2009). Myths and facts regarding teaching evaluation by students, Al Hagova. Journal on Teaching in Higher Education (in Hebrew), n. 8, pp. 40–43.

12.

Howard

G.S.

, (1985). Construct validity of measures of college teaching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,187–196.

13.

Kulik

J. A.

Kulik

C.C.

, (1974). Student ratings of instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1, 51–57

14.

Krautmann

A. C.

Sander

, (1999). Grades and student evaluations of teachers. Economics of Education Review, 18, 59–63.

15.

Marsh

H.W.

, (1986). Applicability paradigm: Students' evaluation of teaching effectiveness in different countries. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78,465–473.

16.

Mehdinzadeh

, (1990). Log-linear models and student course evaluations. Journal of Economic Education, 21, 7–21.

17.

Mor

(1993). Two provocative questions in achievement evaluation. Eeyunim betechnologia ubemadayim. Ort publication, 26–28.

18.

O'Day

J.A.

Smith

(1993). Systemic school reform and educational opportunity. In iFuhrman

(Ed.), Designing Coherent Educational Policy: Improving the System. San-Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 250–311.

19.

Olshavsky

R. W.

Spreng

R.A.

, (1995). Consumer satisfaction and students: Some pitfalls of being customer driven. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behaviors, 8, 69–77.

20.

Pellegrino

J. W.

, (2002). Knowing what students know. Issues in Science and Technology, 19 (2), 48–52.

21.

Read

W.J.

, (2001). The relationships between student evaluations of teaching and faculty evaluations. Journal of Education for Business, 7, (4), 189–192.

22.

Roeber

E.D.

, (1997). The technical and practical challenges in developing innovative assessment approaches for use in statewide assessment programs. Contemporary Education, 69, (1), 6–10.

23.

Sheer

V. C.

Fung

T. K.

(2007). Can email communication enhance professor-student relationship and student evaluation of professors? Some empirical evidence. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 37, (3), 289–306.

24.

Simpson

P.M.

Siguaw

J.A.

, (2000). Students' evaluation of teaching: An exploratory study of faculty response. Journal of Marketing Education, 22,199–213.

25.

Wilson

W. R.

, (1999). Students rating teachers. Journal of Higher Education, 70, (5), 562–571.

26.

Winfred

Jr. (2003). Teaching effectiveness: The relationship between reaction and learning evaluation criteria. Educational Psychology, 23, (3), 275–285.

27.

Wright

R. E.

(2008). Student evaluation of faculty: concerns raised in the literature, and possible solutions, College Student Journal, 40, (2), 417–422.

28.

Zangenehzadeh

, (1988). Grade inflation: a way out. Journal of Economics, 19, 217–230.