Reducing the workload in your class won't "buy" you better teaching evaluation scores: Re-refutation of a persistent myth

ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 11853-11874

  Dee, Kay C ^a  

^a Tulane University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COURSE WORKS; DATA TRANSFORMATIONS; ENGINEERING FACULTY; TEACHING EVALUATION;

CORRELATION METHODS; DATA REDUCTION; EVALUATION; PROFESSIONAL ASPECTS; STUDENTS; TEACHING;

ENGINEERING EDUCATION;

EID: 5444233091     PISSN: 01901052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (23)

1. McKeachic, W.J. Student ratings of faculty: a reprise. Academe. October: 384-397, 1979.
2. Cashin, W.E., IDEA Paper no. 32: Student ratings of teaching: the research revisited. 1995, Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development, Division of Continuing Education, Kansas State University: Manhattan, Kansas.
3. Wachtel, H.K. Student evaluation of college teaching effectiveness: a brief review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. 23: 191-211, 1998.
4. Linsky, A.S. and Straus, MA. Student evaluations, research productivity, and eminence of college faculty. Journal of Higher Education. 46: 89-102, 1975.
5. Marsh, H.W. Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research. 11:253-388, 1987.
6. Marsh, H.W. Students' evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases, and utility. Journal of Educational Psychology. 76: 707-754, 1984.
7. Sojka, J., Gupta, A.K., and Deeter-Schmelz, D.R. Student and faculty perceptions of student evaluations of teaching: A study of similarities and differences. College Teaching. 50:44-49, 2002.
8. Glantz, S.A., Primer of Biostatistics, New York: McGraw-Hill Health Professions Division, 1997, pg. 324.
9. See Glantz, op. cit. (reference 8), pg. 257.
10. Nunnally, J.C., Psychometric Theory, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967, pg. 125.
11. Kirk, R.E., Experimental Design: Procedures for the Behaviorial Sciences (second edition), Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company, 1982, pg. 78.
12. See Nunnally, op. cit. (reference 10), pgs. 288-371.
13. SPSS software Tutorial: "Factor Analysis", SPSS for Windows, Standard version, 2001
14. Sixbury, G.R. and Cashin, W.E., IDEA Technical Report No. 9: Description of database for the IDEA diagnostic form. 1995, Center for Faculty Evaluation & Development, Kansas State University.
15. Marsh, H.W. Distinguishing between good (useful) and bad workloads on students' evaluations of teaching. American Educational Research Journal. 38: 183-212, 2001.
16. Chau, H. and Hocevar, D. Higher-order factor analysis of multidimensional students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Proceedings of the The Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association (AERA). New Orleans, LA: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). 1994.
17. Kirk, R.E. Practical significance: a concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 56: 746-759, 1996.
18. Nickerson, R.S. Null hypothesis significance testing: a review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychological Methods. 5: 241-301, 2000.
19. Marsh, H.W. Effects of grading leniency and low workload on students' evaluations of teaching: popular myth, bias, validity, or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology. 92: 202-228, 2000.
20. Ryan, J.J., Anderson, J.A., and Birchler, A.B. Student evaluation: the faculty responds. Research in Higher Education. 12:317-333, 1980.
21. See Ryan, et al., op. cit. (reference 21), pg. 317.
22. See Ryan, et al., op. cit. (reference 21), pg. 322.
23. Greenwald, A.G. and Gilhnore, G.M. No pain, no gain? The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology. 89: 743-751, 1997.