Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical

IF 2.2 Q1 ETHICS Journal of Academic Ethics Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1007/s10805-024-09562-3
Daryl Close
{"title":"Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical","authors":"Daryl Close","doi":"10.1007/s10805-024-09562-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>For decades, student ratings of university faculty have been used by administrators in high stakes faculty employment decisions such as tenure, promotion, contract renewal and reappointment, and merit pay. However, virtually no attention has been paid to the ethical questions of using ratings in employment decisions. Instead, the ratings literature is generally limited to psychometric issues such as whether a given student ratings instrument exhibits the statistical properties of reliability and validity. There is no consensus understanding of teaching effectiveness, the very attribute that students are alleged to “evaluate.” What students are actually doing when they complete a ratings form—whether measuring, evaluating, reporting, judging, opining, etc.—remains unsettled in the ratings literature. If ratings are surveys of student satisfaction, they have no logical or ethical connection with teaching expertise. I argue that the administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions violates basic moral principles including nonmaleficence, beneficence, professional autonomy and clinical independence, and multiple aspects of justice including due care, truthfulness, and equitable treatment. These ethical violations rule against any administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions, including the “use with caution in conjunction with other evaluative methods” deployment of student ratings. My conclusion is that such use should be immediately and universally terminated. Formative use of student questionnaires as part of ordinary instructional communication and feedback between instructor and students is a separate issue and outside of the scope of this paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":45961,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Academic Ethics","volume":"6 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Academic Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-024-09562-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For decades, student ratings of university faculty have been used by administrators in high stakes faculty employment decisions such as tenure, promotion, contract renewal and reappointment, and merit pay. However, virtually no attention has been paid to the ethical questions of using ratings in employment decisions. Instead, the ratings literature is generally limited to psychometric issues such as whether a given student ratings instrument exhibits the statistical properties of reliability and validity. There is no consensus understanding of teaching effectiveness, the very attribute that students are alleged to “evaluate.” What students are actually doing when they complete a ratings form—whether measuring, evaluating, reporting, judging, opining, etc.—remains unsettled in the ratings literature. If ratings are surveys of student satisfaction, they have no logical or ethical connection with teaching expertise. I argue that the administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions violates basic moral principles including nonmaleficence, beneficence, professional autonomy and clinical independence, and multiple aspects of justice including due care, truthfulness, and equitable treatment. These ethical violations rule against any administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions, including the “use with caution in conjunction with other evaluative methods” deployment of student ratings. My conclusion is that such use should be immediately and universally terminated. Formative use of student questionnaires as part of ordinary instructional communication and feedback between instructor and students is a separate issue and outside of the scope of this paper.

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
为什么学生对教师的评分是不道德的?
几十年来,学生对大学教师的评分一直被管理者用于关系重大的教师聘用决策,如终身教职、晋升、合同续签和续聘以及绩效工资等。然而,几乎没有人关注过在就业决策中使用评分的伦理问题。相反,评级文献一般仅限于心理测量问题,如特定的学生评级工具是否具有信度和效度的统计特性。对于教学效果,也就是学生所谓的 "评价 "属性,还没有达成共识。学生在填写评分表时究竟在做什么--无论是测量、评价、报告、判断、观点等--在评分文献中仍然没有定论。如果评分是对学生满意度的调查,那么它们与教学专业技能就没有逻辑或道德上的联系。我认为,行政部门在教师聘用决策中使用学生评分违反了基本的道德原则,包括非渎职原则、受益原则、专业自主和临床独立原则,以及多方面的公正原则,包括应有的关注、真实性和公平待遇原则。这些违反道德的行为导致在行政管理中反对在教师聘用决策中使用学生评分,包括 "结合其他评价方法谨慎使用 "学生评分的部署。我的结论是,应立即普遍终止使用这种方法。作为教师与学生之间正常教学交流和反馈的一部分,学生问卷的形成性使用是另一个问题,不在本文讨论范围之内。
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
4.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The Journal of Academic Ethics is a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary, peer reviewed journal which examines all ethical issues which arise within the scope of university purposes. The journal publishes original research in the ethics of research production and publication; teaching and student relations; leadership; management and governance. The journal offers sustained inquiry into such topics as the ethics of university strategic directions; ethical investments; sustainability practices; the responsible conduct of research and teaching; collegiality and faculty relations; and the appropriate models of ethical and accountable governance for universities in the 21st century.
期刊最新文献
Developing Student Agency Towards Academic Integrity Through an Educative Approach: Exploring Students’ Experiences and Perspectives Fabricating Citations: The Policies of New Jersey Public Institutions of Higher Education Developing Surveys on Questionable Research Practices: Four Challenging Design Problems Testing a Psychological Model of Post-Pandemic Academic Cheating Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical
×
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