Teacher professionalism and student evaluation of teaching: Will better teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give higher ratings?

Educational Studies

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 201-214

  Spooren, Pieter ^a   Mortelmans, Dimitri ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ANTWERP   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Evaluation methods; Students' evaluation of teaching; Teacher evaluation; Validity studies

Indexed keywords

EID: 33744922374     PISSN: 03055698     EISSN: 14653400     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/03055690600631101     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
2. Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models, Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
3. Brodie, D. A. (1998) Do students report that easy professors are excellent teachers? Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 28(1), 1-20.
4. Centra, J. A. (1993) Reflective faculty evaluation (San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass).
5. Centra, J. A. (2003) Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 495-518.
6. Chen, Y. & Hoshower, L. B. (2003) Student evaluation of teaching effectiveness: an assessment of student perception and motivation. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 28(1), 71-88.
7. Chonko, L. B., Tanner, J. F. & Davis, R. (2002) What are they thinking? Students' expectations and self-assessments, Journal of Education, for Business, May-June, 271-281.
8. Cohen, J. (1977) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (New York, Academic Press).
9. Feldman, K. A. (1976) Grades and college students, evaluations of their courses and teacher, Research in Higher Education, 4, 69-111.
10. Feldman, K. A. (1997) Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching. Evidence from student ratings, in: R. Perry & J. Smart (Eds) Effective teaching in higher education: research and practice (New York, Agathon).
11. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
12. Greenwald, A. G. & Gillmore, G. M. (1997a) Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings, American Psychologist, 52(11), 1209-1217.
13. Greenwald, A. G. & Gillmore, G. M. (1997b) No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 743-751.
14. Hatcher, L. (1994) A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling (Cary, SAS Institute).
15. Knapper, C. (2001) Broadening our approach to teaching evaluation, New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Winter, 88, 3-9.
16. Krautmann, A. C. & Sander, W. (1999) Grades and student evaluation of teachers, Economics of Education Review, 18, 59-63.
17. Kulik, J. A. (2001) Student ratings: validity, utility and controversy, New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(5), 9-25.
18. Marsh, H. W. (1984) Students, evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and utility, Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 707-754.
19. Marsh, H. W. (1987) Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for further research, International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253-388.
20. Marsh, H. W. & Roche, L. A. (2000) Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202-228.
21. Marsh, H. W. et al. (1988) Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: the effect of sample size, Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
22. McKeachie, W. J. (1997) Student ratings: the validity of use, American Psychologist, 52, 1218-1225.
23. Mortelmans, D. & Spooren, P. (2005) Kwaliteit meten en beoordelen. Eindrapport van de valider-ingsstudie naar het UA-evaluatieinstrument voor opleidingsanderdelen (Antwerp, Universiteit Antwerpen, Faculteit Politieke en Sociale Wetenschappen).
24. Penny, A. R. (2003) Changing the agenda for research into students' views about university teaching: four shortcomings of SRT research, Teaching in Higher Education, 8(3), 399-411.
25. Pike, R. P. (1999) The constant error of the halo in educational outcomes research, Research in Higher Education, 40(1), 61-86.
26. Shevlin, M., Banyard, P., Davies, M. & Griffiths, M. (2000) The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 397-405.
27. Sproule, R. (2002) The underdetermination of instructor performance by data from the student evaluation of teaching, Economics of Education Review, 21, 287-294.
28. Theall, M. & Franklin, J. (2001) Looking for bias in all the wrong places: a search for truth or a witch hunt in student ratings of instruction? New Directions for Institutional Research, 27(5), 45-56.
29. Wachtel, H. K. (1998) Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2.3(2), 191-210.
30. Wolfer, T. A. & Johnson, M. (2003) Re-evaluating student evaluation of teaching: the teaching evaluation form, Journal of Social Work Education, 39(1), 111-120.