Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Research into student evaluations



I would amend this with the proviso that SETS are a measure of low level
affective impact. High level affective impact is measured by the MPEX,
which shows that it rises in well designed studio courses. But in such
courses SETS often are lower.

HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I think SET's can be "valid" in the sense that they can be useful for
gauging the *affective* impact of a course and for providing
diagnostic feedback to *teachers* [see, e.g., Hake & Swihart (1979)]
to assist them in making mid-course corrections. However IMHO, SET's
are NOT valid in their widespread use by *administrators* to gauge
the cognitive impact of courses [see, e.g., Williams & Ceci (1997);
Hake (2000; 2002c,d); Johnson (2002)]. In fact the gross misuse of
SET's as gauges of student learning is, in my view, one of the
institutional factors that thwarts substantive educational reform
(Hake 2002b, Lesson #12)."
HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

John M. Clement
Houston, TX