Re: [Phys-l] Research into student evaluations

["David T. Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>]

Richard Hake wrote:

> HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
>
> In response to Turner's post, David Marx replied on 26 Oct 2006 
> [slightly edited; my CAPS]:
>
> MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
> I recommend a look at [Seldin (2006)].
>
> STUDENT EVALUATIONS ARE (surprisingly) VALID MEASURES OF TEACHING 
> PERFORMANCE.  There are a lot of misconceptions about student evals. 
> This book includes studies of evals.
> MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
>
> SET's are a valid measure of teaching performance? The crucial 
> question is "Valid for what?" In Hake (2002a) I wrote [see that 
> article for references other than Hake & Swihart (1979) and Hake 
> (2002b)]:

On the teaching evaluations we use, there are 14 questions.  The two that are 
weighted heavily are the following:

How does your learning in this course compare with your learning in other courses at 
this university?

How does the instructor compare with other instructors you have had at this 
university?

In my experience, freshmen in their first semester are not qualified to answer these 
questions.  Why should I be compared equally with an instructor of English or 
mathematics?  Especially, if the course is a gen ed course geared toward non-
technical majors that dislike science coming in.

In our department, instructors that teach juniors and seniors are rated higher than 
when the same instructors are evaluated by freshmen.  Why is that?

Yet, the reference that I gave in my post (Selden's book) indicates that student 
evaluations have been studied and shown to accurately reflect the teaching ability of 
the instructors.  I have not read the study as I do not have the book, but I pointed it 
out as a possible source for such a study.

Take care,
David Marx