Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2001-06
Optimizing the Fairness of Student Evaluations: A Study of Correlations between Instructor Excellence,Study Production,Learning Production,and Expected Grades
This article studies relationships between student ratings of instructor excellence and study production, learning production, and expected grades production. Although the findings of the study generally replicate similar relationships in the student evaluation literature, the findings of this research show that some teachers are rated relatively high as instructors but relatively low as producers of study and learning, whereas other teachers are rated relatively low as instructors but relatively high as producers of study and learning. These confounding relationships are partially due to the different teaching styles and methods of teachers. A Composite Indicator of Teaching Productivity is recommended as a means of increasing the fairness of student evaluations for all types of teachers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Brown, D. L.
(1976). Faculty ratings and student grades: A university-wide multiple regression analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 573-578.
2.
Cohen, P. A.
(1981). Student ratings of instruction and student achievement: A meta-analysis of multisection validity studies. Review of Educational Research, 51, 281-309.
3.
Cone, J. D.
(1996, April 5). Letters to the editor. The San Diego Union-Tribune, p. B11-B11.
4.
D’ Appollonia, S.
, & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1198-1208.
5.
England, J.
, Hutchings, P., & McKeachie, W. J. (1997). The professional evaluation of teaching (Occasional Paper No. 33). New York: American Council of Learned Societies.
6.
Gagne, R. M.
(1977). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
7.
Greenwald, A. G.
(1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.
8.
Greenwald, A. G.
, & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1216.
9.
Howard, G. S.
, & Maxwell, S. E. (1980). Correlation between student satisfaction and grades: A case of mistaken causation?Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 810-820.
10.
Kulik, J. A.
, & Kulik, C. C. (1974). Student ratings of instruction. Teaching of Psychology, 1(2), 51-57.
11.
Marchese, T.
(1997, September/October). Student evaluations of teaching. Change, 5(5), 4-4.
12.
Marsh, H. W.
(1980). The influence of student, course, and instructor characteristics in evaluation of university teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 219-237.
13.
Marsh, H. W.
(1981). Prior subject interest, students’ evaluations, and instructional effectiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 83-104.
14.
Marsh, H. W.
(1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 77-95.
15.
Marsh, H. W.
, & Roche, L. A. (1997). Making students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197.
16.
McKeachie, W. J.
(1997a). Student evaluations of teaching. The professional evaluation of teaching (American Council of Learned Societies Occasional Paper No. 33) [Online]. Available: http://www.acls.org/op33.htm
17.
McKeachie, W. J.
(1997b). Student ratings: The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
18.
Murkison, G.
(1991). The search for a smoking gun in student evaluations: Maybe there is one!Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Institute for Management Sciences, Southeastern Chapter, 27, 1-4.
19.
Pickett, J. R.
(1987). Do grades influence student evaluations? An empirical evaluation. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Institute for Management Sciences, Southeastern Chapter, 23, 357-358.
20.
Randall, C. H.
, Price, B. A., Tudor, L., & Stapleton, R. J. (1999). In search of a better mousetrap: Can a composite profile accurately evaluate teaching effectiveness?Proceedings of the National Decision Science Institute annual meeting, 30, 266-268.
21.
Rawls, J.
(1999). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
22.
Stapleton, R.J.
(1990). Academic entrepreneurship: Using the case method to simulate competitive business markets. The Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 14 (4), 88-104.
23.
Stapleton, R. J.
, & Stapleton, D. C. (1996). Randomly selecting students to lead case method discussions: Problems and pitfalls in performance appraisal. Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences, Southeastern Chapter, 32, 117-119.
24.
Stapleton, R. J.
, & Stapleton, D. C. (1998). Teaching business using the case method and transactional analysis: A constructivist approach. Transactional Analysis Journal, 28, 157-167.
25.
Tang, T.L.-P.
(1997). Teaching effectiveness at a public institution of higher education: Factors related to the overall teaching effectiveness. Public Personnel Management, 26, 379-387.
