How do Students and Faculty Consider Numerical Ratings and Comments About Daily Quizzing when Interpreting Student Evaluations of Teaching?

IF 0.7 4区 心理学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Teaching of Psychology Pub Date : 2023-09-11 DOI:10.1177/00986283231199454
Michelle L. Rivers, Addison L. Babineau, Katherine P. Neely, Sarah K. Tauber
{"title":"How do Students and Faculty Consider Numerical Ratings and Comments About Daily Quizzing when Interpreting Student Evaluations of Teaching?","authors":"Michelle L. Rivers, Addison L. Babineau, Katherine P. Neely, Sarah K. Tauber","doi":"10.1177/00986283231199454","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are used to assess faculty performance, but prior research has identified sources of bias in the completion and interpretation of SETs. Objective: We investigated how SET ratings and comments about quizzes are interpreted by faculty and undergraduates. Method: Participants made judgments about teaching effectiveness after reviewing a fictional professor's SETs. SETs varied in whether the professor was rated lower or higher than the departmental average using quantitative measures, and whether qualitative comments about the professor mentioned daily quizzes. Results: In Experiment 1, more positive evaluations were provided for SETs with higher ratings, whereas comments about quizzing minimally influenced evaluations; this pattern was similar for student and faculty responses. In Experiment 2, qualitative comments were presented in isolation. Student participants provided more positive evaluations for some measures of teaching effectiveness when regular quizzing was mentioned in student comments. Conclusion: Quantitative SET ratings may overshadow qualitative comments about effective teaching practices yet qualitative ratings presented alone reveal some association between quizzing and evaluations of teaching. Teaching Implications: SET interpretation should focus on effective pedagogy such as quizzing, which can aid student learning. We found no evidence that comments about quizzing lowered perceptions of teaching effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":47708,"journal":{"name":"Teaching of Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Teaching of Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283231199454","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are used to assess faculty performance, but prior research has identified sources of bias in the completion and interpretation of SETs. Objective: We investigated how SET ratings and comments about quizzes are interpreted by faculty and undergraduates. Method: Participants made judgments about teaching effectiveness after reviewing a fictional professor's SETs. SETs varied in whether the professor was rated lower or higher than the departmental average using quantitative measures, and whether qualitative comments about the professor mentioned daily quizzes. Results: In Experiment 1, more positive evaluations were provided for SETs with higher ratings, whereas comments about quizzing minimally influenced evaluations; this pattern was similar for student and faculty responses. In Experiment 2, qualitative comments were presented in isolation. Student participants provided more positive evaluations for some measures of teaching effectiveness when regular quizzing was mentioned in student comments. Conclusion: Quantitative SET ratings may overshadow qualitative comments about effective teaching practices yet qualitative ratings presented alone reveal some association between quizzing and evaluations of teaching. Teaching Implications: SET interpretation should focus on effective pedagogy such as quizzing, which can aid student learning. We found no evidence that comments about quizzing lowered perceptions of teaching effectiveness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在解释学生对教学的评价时,学生和教师如何考虑数字评分和对日常测验的评论?
背景:学生教学评价(set)被用来评估教师的表现,但先前的研究已经确定了在完成和解释set时的偏见来源。目的:我们调查了教师和本科生如何理解SET评分和对测验的评论。方法:参与者在看了虚构的教授的课表后,对教学效果做出判断。使用定量测量方法,教授的评分是低于还是高于系里的平均水平,以及关于教授的定性评论是否提到了每天的小测验。结果:在实验1中,对评分较高的set给出了更多的积极评价,而关于测验的评论对评价的影响最小;这种模式在学生和教师的回答中是相似的。在实验2中,定性评论是孤立的。当学生评论中提到定期测验时,学生参与者对某些教学效果的评价更为积极。结论:定量的SET评分可能掩盖了对有效教学实践的定性评价,但单独提出的定性评分揭示了测验和教学评估之间的一些联系。教学启示:SET口译应注重有效的教学方法,如测验,这可以帮助学生学习。我们没有发现任何证据表明关于测验的评论降低了人们对教学效果的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
22.20%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: Basic and introductory psychology courses are the most popular electives on college campuses and a rapidly growing addition to high school curriculums. As such, Teaching of Psychology is indispensable as a source book for teaching methods and as a forum for new ideas. Dedicated to improving the learning and teaching process at all educational levels, this journal has established itself as a leading source of information and inspiration for all who teach psychology. Coverage includes empirical research on teaching and learning; studies of teacher or student characteristics; subject matter or content reviews for class use; investigations of student, course, or teacher assessment; professional problems of teachers; essays on teaching.
期刊最新文献
Does Lecture Style Matter in Asynchronous Online Interteaching? Student and Faculty Perceptions of Generative Artificial Intelligence in Student Writing The Use of AI Disclosure Statements in Teaching: Developing Skills for Psychologists of the Future Navigating the New Frontier: Recommendations to Address the Crisis and Potential of AI in the Classroom Recommendations for Implementing Anti-Ableism Across the Psychology Curriculum
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1