Administrators use data from student evaluations of teachers (SETs) as input for making numerous decisions. However, many in the profession question the validity of SET information. This study examines the SET process from a cognitive perspective and investigates the relationship between student images of their teachers and characteristics of mindless SET completion. Questionnaire data from 127 students show significant correlations between SET scores and overall teacher evaluations, but only when images of the current and ideal teacher are not compatible. When images of the current and ideal teacher are compatible, correlations between SET and overall scores are not statistically significant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abrami, P. C., d'Apollonia, S., & Cohen, P. A. (1990). The validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 219-231.
2.
Basow, S. A. (2000). Best and worst professors: Gender patterns in students' choices. Sex Roles, 43, 407-417.
3.
Beach, L. R. (1996). Decision making in the workplace. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Beach, L. R. (1998). Image theory: Theoretical and empirical foundations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
Bittle, L. R. (1964). Management by exception. New York: McGraw-Hill.
6.
Borman, W. C. (1987). Personal constructs, performance schemata, and “folk theories” of subordinate effectiveness: Exploration in an Army officer sample. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisiion Processes, 40, 307-322.
7.
Centra, J. A. (1993). Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
8.
Chanowitz, B., & Langer, E. (1981). Premature cognitive commitment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(6), 1051-1063.
9.
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.
10.
d'Apollonia, S., & Abrami, P. C. (1997). Navigating student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1198-1208.
11.
Dowell, D. A., & Neal, J. A. (1982). A selective review of the validity of student ratings of teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 53, 51-62.
12.
Dunegan, K. J. (1993). Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half-full. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 491-503.
13.
Fazio, R. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 75-109). New York: Academic Press.
14.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 30, 583-645.
15.
Feldman, K. A. (1990). An afterword for “The association between student ratings of specific instruction dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies.” Research in Higher Education, 31, 315-318.
16.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Foti, R. (1988). Differences in performance schemata as a function of subordinate and superior rank. Presented at the Annual Convention of Academy of Management, Anaheim.
18.
Greenwald, A. G. (1997). Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. American Psychologist, 52, 1182-1186.
19.
Greenwald, A. G., & Gillmore, G. M. (1997). Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1217.
20.
Haberstroh, C. J. (1965). Organization design and systems analysis. In J. March (Ed.), Handbook of organizations (pp. 1171-1211). Chicago: Rand-McNally.
21.
Kaplan, R. E. (1993). 360-degree feedback PLUS: Boosting the power of co-worker ratings for executives. Human Resource Management, 32, 299-314.
22.
Klein, H. J. (1989). An integrated control theory model of work motivation. Academy of Management Review, 14, 150-172.
23.
Langer, E. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 311-328.
24.
Langer, E. (1989a). Mindfulness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
25.
Langer, E. (1989b). Minding matters: The consequences of mindlessness-mindfulness. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 137-173.
26.
Langer, E. J. (2000). Mindfull learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 220-223.
27.
Langer, E., & Imber, L. (1979). When practice makes imperfect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2014-2025.
28.
Longenecker, C. O., & Fink, L. S. (1999). Creating effective performance appraisals. Industrial Management, 41(5), 18-23.
29.
Longenecker, C. O., Sims, H. P., & Gioia, D. A. (1987). Behind the mask: The politics of employee appraisal. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
30.
Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1990). Alternative information-processing models and their implications for theory, research, and practice. Academy of Management Review, 15, 9-28.
31.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
32.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253-388.
33.
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.
34.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grading leniency and low workloads on students' evaluations of teaching: Popular myths, bias, validity or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 202-228.
35.
McCallum, L. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the tenure decision. Research in Higher Education, 21, 150-158.
36.
McKeachie, W. J. (1997). The validity of use. American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
37.
Mitchell, T. R., & Beach, L. R. (1990). “...Do I love thee? Let me count...” Toward an understanding of intuitive and automatic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47, 1-20.
38.
Mohrman, A. M., Jr., & Lawler, E. E., III. (1983). Motivation and performance-appraisal behavior. In F. Landy, S. Zedeck, & J. Cleveland (Eds.), Performance measurement and theory (pp. 173-189). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
Murphy, K. R., & Cleveland, J. N. (1991). Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
40.
Naiper, N., & Latham, G. (1986). Outcome expectancies of people who conduct performance appraisals. Personnel Psychology, 39, 827-837.
41.
O'Reilly, C. A., III. (1983). The use of information in organizational decision making: A model and some propositions. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 5, pp. 103-139). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
42.
Reynolds, D. V. (1977). Students who haven't seen a film on sexuality and communication prefer it to a lecture on the history of psychology they haven't heard: Some implications for the university. Teaching of Psychology, 4, 82-83.
43.
Schepers, D. H., & Beach, L. R. (1998). An image theory view of worker motivation. In L. R. Beach (Ed.), Image theory: Theoretical and empirical foundations (pp. 125-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
Scriven, M. (1988). The validity of student ratings. Instructional Evaluation, 9, 5-18.
45.
Silver, W. S., & Mitchell, T. R. (1990). The status quo tendency in decision making. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 34-46.
46.
Stanfel, L. E. (1995). Measuring the accuracy of student evaluations of teaching. Journal of Instructional Psychology, 22, 117-125.
47.
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Shop management. New York: Harper & Bros.
48.
Trout, P. (2000). Flunking the test: The dismal record of student evaluations. Academe, 86, 58-61.
49.
Webster, E. C. (1964). Decision making in the employment interview. Montreal: Industrial Relations Center, McGill University.
50.
Young, I. P., Delli, D. A., & Johnson, L. (1999). Student evaluation on faculty: Effects of purpose on pattern. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13, 179-190.
