Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 13:2 183-166, 199 (© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston ~ Mansfactred in The Netherlands Student Rating Myths Versus Research Facts from 1924 to 1998 LAWRENCE M, ALEAMONI Special Education, Rehabilitation, and Schoo! Psychology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona 85721 Abstract Sixteen of he most common mths regarding stent lings of nstrctrs and nsrcton ae looked fom ho perspective ofthe research tht hasbeen conducted on them over the ast seventy four years is concluded tht the mths ae, on the whole, myths. However, suggestions are made abeut how te information regarding the myths ci be used to both improve and document instructional effectiveness. Most of the recent Titerature on the evaluation of instructional effectiveness has emphasized a need for comprehensive systems, However, a careful scrutiny of actual To address sixteen of the most common myths regarding student ratings of instructors and instruction, research spanning a seventy-four-year period is cited and summarized below. The research material presented below represents a revision and update of my 1987 article “Student Rating Myths Versus Research Facts” published in this Journal Evidence dating back to 1924, according to Guthrie (1954) and more recent iterature by Albanese (1991), Hativa (1996), and Palchik (1988) indicate justUhe OppOSiFEN The stability of student ratings from one year to the next resulted insubstantial correlations in the range of 0.87 to 0.89, Other literature on the subject, cited by Costin, Greenough, & Menges (1971), and studies by Gillmore (1973) and Hogan (1973) indicated that the correlation between student ratings of the same instructors and courses ranged from 0.70 10 087.154 LLM, ALEAMONT A widely held belief (Borgatta, 1970; Deming, 1972) says that good instruction and good. research are so closely allied that it is unnecessary to evaluate them independently. Research is divided on this point. Weak positive correlations between research productivity and teaching effectiveness have been found by Maslow & Zimmerman (1956), McDaniel & Feldhusen (1970), McGrath (1962), Riley, Ryan & Lipschitz (1950) and Stallings & Singhal (1968). In contrast, Aleamoni & Yimer (1973) Guthrie (1949, 1954), Hayes (1971), Linsky & Straus (1975), Melland (1996), and Voek (1962) found no ignificant relationship between instructors’ research productivity and students’ ratings of their teaching effectiveness. One study Aleamoni & Yimer (1974) also reported no significant relationship between instructors’ research productivity and colleagues’ ratings of their teaching effectiveness, Studies conducted by Aleamoni & Spencer (1973) which developed and used the Ilinois Course Evaluation Questionnaire (CEQ) subscales, indicated that no single subscale (such as Method of Instruction) completely overlapped the other subscales. ‘This result meant that an instructor who received a high rating on the Instructor subscale (made up of items such as “The instructor seemed to be interested in students fas persons") would not be guaranteed high ratings on the other four subscales (General Course Attitude, Method of Instruction, Course Content, and Interest and organization, stimulation of intrest, motivation, answering. questions, and treating students courcously as the basis for their ratings. This evidence, in addition to that presented by Beatty & Zahn (1990), Benz & Blatt (1995), Costin, Greenough & Menges (1971), Dukes & Victoria (1989), Frey (1978), Grush & Costin (1975), Johannessen (1997), Krehbiel et al. (1997), Macdonald (1987), Marin (1987), Marsh & Bailey (1993), Fery, Abrami & Leventhal (1979), Rodabaugh & Kravitz (1994), Shepherd & Trank (1989), Tollefson, Chen & Kleinsasser (1988), Ware & Willams (1977, and Waters, Kemp & Pucci (1988), indicates that students are disriminating judges of insirvtional effectivenessSTUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS 155 It is very difficult to obtain a comparative and representative sample in longitudinal followup studies. The sampling problem is further compounded by the fact that almost all, student attitudinal data relating to a course or instructor are gathered anonymously. Most studies in this area, therefore, have relied on surveys of alumni or graduating seniors. Early recent evidence by Aleamoni & Yimer (1974) Marsh (1977), Marsh & Overall (1979), ‘McKeachie, Lin & Mendelson (1978) further substantiated the earlier findings. ‘Well-developed instruments and procedures for their administration can yield high intemal consistency reliabilities. Arubayi (1987), Costin, Greenough and Menges (1971), and Marsh (1984) reported such reliabilities to be inthe 0.90 range. Aleamoni, 1978a) reported reliabilities ranging from 0.81 to 0.94 for items and from 0.88 to 0.98 for subscales ofthe CCIEQ. It should be noted, however, that wherever student rating forms are not carefully cconsiructed with the aid of professionals, as in the case of most student- and faculty- ‘generated forms Everly & Aleamoni (1972), the reliabilities may be so low as to negate completely the evaluation effect and its results, Validity is much more difficult o assess than reliability. Most student rating forms have been validated by the judgment of experts thatthe items and subscales measure important aspects of instruction Costin, Greenough & Menges (1971). These subjectively determined dimensions of instructional setting and process have also been validated using statistical tools, such as factor analysis Aleamoni & Hexner (1980), Burdsal & Bardo (1986); Elle, Loup & Culross (1997); Marsh (1984), Further evidence of validity ‘comes from studies in which student ratings are correlated with other indicators of teacher competence, such as peer (colleague) ratings, self-ratings, expert judges’ ratings, ‘graduating seniors’ and alumni ratings, and student teaming Abrami, d’Apollonia & Cohen (1990); Baird (1987); Cohen (1989); Dickinson (1990); Drews, Burroughs & Nokovich (1987); Gigliotti & Buchtel (1990); Harrison, Ryan & Moore (1996); Koon & Murray (1995); Nimmer & Stone (1991); O'Connell & Dickinson (1993); Prave & Basil (1993); Prosser & Trigwell (1990); Ryan & Harrison (1995); Shmanske (1988); Stroh (1991); Teven & MeCroskey (1997); Vu, Marriott, Skeff, Stratos & Litzelman (1997). In the fourten studies cited by Aleamoni & Hexner, (1980), student ratings were compared to (1) colleague rating, (2) expert judges’ ratings, (3) graduating seniors’ and alumni ratings, and (4 student learning measures. All indicated the existence of moderate to high positive correlations, which can be considered as providing additional evidence of validity. This is in contrast to two studies Bendig, (1953); Rodin & Rodin (1972) that found a negative relationship between student achievement and instructor rating. The156 LM. ALEAMONI latter study has been soundly criticized for its methodology by several researchers (Centra, 1973a; Frey, 1973; Gessner, 1973; Menges, 1973). class size and student ratings. Studies cited by Lin (1992) and Van Arsdale & Hammons (1995) as well as one conducted by Shapiro (1990) also indicate no ‘relationship between class size and student ratings. Some investigators have also reported ‘curvilinear relationships between class size and student ratings Gage (1961); Kohlan (1973); Lovell & Haner (1955); Marsh, Overall & Kesler (1979); Pohimann (1975); Wood, Linsky & Straus (1974) Although conflicting results have been obtained when relating the gender of the student and the gender of the instructor to student evaluations of instruction, a majority of the studies by Aleamoni & Thomas (1980), Amin (1994), Doyle & Whitely (1974), Duikes & Victoria (1989), Feldman (1993), Femandez & Mateo (1997), Freeman (1994), Goodhartz (1948), Goodwin & Stevens (1993), Hancock, Shannon & Trentham (1992), Isaacson et al. (1964), Ludwig & Meacham (1997), O'Reilly (1987), Petchers & Chow (1988), Wheeless & Potorti (1989), and Winocur, Schoen & Sirowatka (1989) reported no differences between faculty ratings made by male and female students. In addition, Costin, Greenough & Menges (1971) cited seven studies that reported no differences in overall ratings of instructors made by male and female students or in the ratings received. by male and female instructors. Conversely, Bendig (1952) found female students to be more critical of male instructors than their male counterparts. Basow & Silberg (1987) and Summers, Anderson, Hines, Gelder & Dean (1996) reposted that male and female students both rate female instructors lower than male instructors. Kierstead, D'Agostino & Dill (1988) and Tatro (1995) reported that female instructors are rated higher than males. Walker (1969) found that female students rated female instructors significantly higher than they rated male instructors, whereas Atamian & Ganguli (1993), Goldberg. & Callahan (1991), and Luek (1993) reported that male students rate male instructors higher. In addition, Aleamoni & Hexner (1980) cited five studies that reported female students rate instructors higher on some subscales of instructor evaluation forms than do male students,STUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS 157 ‘The limited amount of research in this area (Feldman, 1978; Guthrie, 1954; Yongkitikul, Myth 8: “Several investigators have found that students who are required to take a course tend to rate it lower than students who elect to take it (Cohen & Humphreys, 1960; Divoky & Rathermel, 1988; Gillmore & Brandenburg, 1974; Pohlmana, 1975). This finding is supported by Gage (1961), Lovell & Haner (1955), Petchers & Chow (1988), and Scherr & Scherr (1990), who found that instructors of elective courses were rated significantly. higher than instructors of required courses, In contrast, Heilman & Armentrout (1936) and. Hildebrand, Wilson & Dienst (1971) reported no differences between students’ ratings of required courses and elective courses. ‘Myth 10; Whether Students are Majors or Nonmajors affects their Ratings ‘The limited amount of research in this area (Aleamoni & Thomas, 1980; Cohen & Humphreys, 1960; Divoky & Rothermel, 1988; Null & Nicholson, 1972; Rayder, 1968) indicates that no significant differences and no significant relationships exist between student ratings and whether students were taking a course as part of a major. Myth 11: The Level of the Course (Freshman, Sophomore, Junior, Senior, Graduate) Affects Student Ratings Aleamoni_ & Hexner (1980) cited eight investigators who reported no significant relationship between student slatus (freshman, sophomore, etc.) and ratings assigned to instructors. However, they also cited eighteen other investigators who reported that graduate students and upper-division students tended to rate instructors more158 LM. ALEAMONI ‘Some investigators reported that instructors of higher rank receive higher student ratings (Clark & Keller, 1954; Downie, 1952; Gage, 1961; Guthrie, 1954; Walker, 1969), whereas Schuckman (1990) reported that teaching assistants were rated higher than the ranked faculty. Others reported no significant relationship between instructor rank and student ratings (Aleamoni & Graham, 1974; Aleamoni & Thomas, 1980; Aleamoni & Yimer, 1973; Linsky & Straus, 1975; Petchers & Chow, 1988); Singhal (1968). Conflicting results have also been found when comparing teaching experience to student ratings. Rayder (1968) reported a negative relationship, whereas Heilman & Armentrout (1936) found no significant relationship. Considerable controversy has centered around the relationship between student ratings and twenty-four studies have reported zero relationships (Aleamoni & Hexner, 1980; Baird, 1987; Giglioti & Buchtel, 1990). Another thirty-seven studies have reported significant positive relationships (Aleamoni & Hexner, 1980; Blunt 1991; Cohen, 1989; Goldberg & Callahan, 1991; Nimmer & Stone, 1991; Rodabaugh & Kravitz, 1994; Sailor, Worthen & Shin, 1997; Scherr & Scherr, 1990; Trick, 1993; Wilson, 1998). One study by Sailor, Worthen & Shin (1997) reported a negative relationship in graduate courses. In most instances, however, these relationships were relatively weak, as indicated by the fact thatthe median correlation was approximately 0.14, with the mean and standard deviation being 0.18 and 0.16, respectively. ‘A widely publicized study by Rodin & Rodin (1972) reported @ high negative relationship between student performance on examinations and their ratings of graduate teaching assistants. These results have been contested on methodological grounds by Rodin, Frey & Gessner (1975), Subsequent replications of the study using regular faculty rather than teaching assistants and using more sophisticated rating forms have resulted in & positive rather than a negative relationship (Frey, 1973; Gessner, 1973; Sullivan & Skanes, 1974) Studies by Andrew, Gauthier & Jelmberg (1993), Cashin (1990), Goldman (1993), Goodwin & Stevens (1993), and Zahn & Schramm (1992) indicate that disciplinary Myth 1STUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS 159 ‘The limited amount of research in this area (Aleamoni & Thomas, 1980; Burdsal & Bardo, 1986; Cashin & Downey, 1992; McBean, 1991; McBean & Lennox, 1987) indicates that low relationship between single general items and specific items and that the ender, Studies by Braunstein, Klein & Pachla (1973), Centra (19736), and Miller (1971) were inconclusive with respect to the effect of feedback at midterm to instructors whose instruction was again evaluated at the end of the term. However, L'Hommedieu, Menges & Brinko (1990), Marsh (1987), Marsh, Fleiner & Thomas (1975), Marsh & Roche (1993), Overall & Marsh (1979), and Sherman (1978) reported more favorable ratings from and improved learning by students by the end of the term. To determine if a combination of a printed report ofthe results and personal consultations would be superior to providing only a printed report of results, Aleamoni (19786), Arubayi (1987), Cohen. (1991), McKeachie (1979), Schmelkin & Spencer (1997), Schum & Xindra (1996), and Stevens & Aleamoni Conclusion Seventy-three articles were cited in the 1987 article addressing the fifteen most common student rating myths. In the twelve years since that article was published, an additional eighty-one articles have been generated that have addressed the original fifteen student rating myths plus an additional one included in the current article. Amazingly, all of this, research continues to support the fact that the sixteen stated student rating myths are (on the whole) myths. In fact, the most recent research on the use of a printed report of the student rating results in combination with personal consultations continue to support the position that such information can be used by the instructor to enrich and improve the course as well as to document instructional effectiveness for administrative purposes. This review also emphasizes that when student ratings are gathered from forms that have been constructed with the aid of questionnaire design and scaling professionals, the160 LM, ALEAMONT resulting data and subsequent evaluations can be both reliable and valid, Such data can provide the instructor with first-hand information on the accomplishment of particular educational goals and on the level of satisfaction with and influence of various course elements, If the instructor uses this information constructively, then the students can benefit through an improved teaching and learning environment as well as from having access to information about particular instructors and courses. In addition, administrators (department heads, and deans) also benefit through an improved teaching and learning environment as well as a more accurate representation of student judgments in the personnel decision-making process. ‘The disadvantages of gathering student ratings primarily result from how they are misinterpreted and misused. The most common misuse is to report raw numerical results, and written comments assuming that the user is qualified to interpret such results validly. Without normative (or comparative) information, a faculty member will be tempted to place inappropriate emphasis on selected student responses. Ifthe results are published by the student government association, the biases of the editor(s) might misrepresent the ‘meaning of the ratings fo both students and faculty. If administrators use the ratings for punitive purposes only, the faculty will find ways to undermine their use and impugn their credibility, Acknowledgments ‘This material represents a revision and update of my 1987 article “Student Rating Myths Versus Research Facts” Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 1, 111-119, References Awami, AC, Apollonia. Cohen, PA. (1990. Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and hat we 6o not know Journal of Edwcational Psychology, 82(2), 219-231, “Albanese, MA. (191). The validity of lecturer tings by students apd tained observers. Academic Medicine, ott), 26-28 ‘Akamoni, LM. (1978). Typical facuky concerns about stadent evulation of inaction, National Association of Colleges and Teachers of Agrieulture Journal, 20(1), 16-21. ‘Aleamooi, LM, (1978). Development and factorial validation ofthe Asizona Courseflstructor Evaluation Questionnaire, Eacaona and Psychological Measurement, 38, 1063-1067, “Alston, LM, (19780). The usefulness of stent evalstions in improving college teshing nsrutonal Science, 7, 95-105 ‘Alemoni, LM, & Yimer,M. (1974). Graduating senor ratings relationship to colleague raring, student ‘ting research productivity and academic rankn rating instructional fetvenes (Research Repost No. 352), Urbana: University of Minos, Ofc of instructional Resources, Measurement and Research Division, ‘Aleman, LM, & Grahim, MLM, (1978). The relationship between CEO ratings and instructor’ ak, lass size, and outs lve. Journal of Educational Measurement, 11, 189-202. ‘Aleumoni, LM, & Hexer, PZ (1980), A review ofthe research on siden evaluation apd report on the effect of ferent sets of instructions on stdentcoure and instructor evsltion,Insructional Science, 9, 6T= cs[STUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS. 161 Alsamoni, LM, & Spencer, RE. (1973). The Minois Course Evaluation Questionnaire: A description of its evelopment and sept of rome ofits resus, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 3, 69-688 ‘Aleamoni, LM, & Thomas, OS, (1980), Differential reltonshipe of student, esbuctr, and course characterises genta and specif tems on a course evaluation questionaire. Teaching of Psychology, 14), Bens ‘Aeon, LM. & Yimer, M, (1973). An investigation ofthe sltionship between colleagee ating, student ‘ang, esearch productivity and academic rank in rating instrctiona effectiveness. Journal of Educational Paychology, 4, 214-27. “Amin, MLE. (1994). Gender as » discriminating factor in the evaluation of teaching. Assessment and Boaluaton in Higher Education, 190), 135-143 ‘Andrew, MD. Gauthier, SA. & Selmer 1. (1993). Comparing stent pereptions of instruction in teacher eduction and on education courses. Journal of Persone! Evaluation in Eduction, 6(8, 388-366, “Amubuy, EA. (1987) Improvement of instruction and teacher eectiveness: Are student ratings reliable and vais? Higher Education, 16(), 26-278. ‘Aanian, R., & Ganguli, G. (1993). Teacher popularity and teaching effectiveness: Viewpoint of accounting students, Journal of Education for Business, (3), 163-169. Baie, JS, I (1987), Perceived learning in relation osodent elution to university isevtin. Journal of Paucaional Psychology, 741), 901 Basow, S.A. & Siverg, N°. (1947), Student evaluations of college profesor: Are female and male professors rated ditfrenty? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93), 308-314 ‘Beaty, ML, & Zahn, C4 (1990) Are stent ratings of commonicition instrtors ue to “easy” grading practices? An analysis of teacher crodbiliy and studeatzepoted performance levels. Conmunicaron Eaucation, 38), 275-282. Bendig, A.W, (1952) A preliminary study ofthe effect of academic level sex, und couse variables on student ‘ating of psychology insrctrs, Journal of Psychol, 34, 2-126 ‘Bendig, A.W. (1953) Relation of level of couse achievemeat of students, instuctor and course ratings in ingoductory psychology. Educational and Poycholgical Measurement, 3, 487-88, ‘Benz, Cy & Bla, $J, (1995), Factors underlying elective elle tsching: What students tll us. Mid Wesert Educational Researcher, (2). 77-31. Diunt, A. (1991). The effets of anonymity snd manipulated grades on student ratings of insuuctr. Community College Review, 18), 48-54 ‘Borgata, EF (1970) Stdent ratings of faulty, American Association of University Professors, Bulletin 56, ot, [Braunsiin, DN, Klein, G.A, & Pachla, M. (1973). Feedback, expectancy and shifts in stodent ratings of college faculty. Journal of Applied Paychology, 58, 254-258. ‘Borda, CA, & Bardo, JW, (1986) Measuring students pereptions of eaching: Dimensons of evaluation. Educational and Peychologieal Measurement, 46, 68-79. ‘Cashin, WE: (1990) Student do ate academic Res difeely. New Directions for Teaching and Learning (Stent Ratings of Insouction: Issues for Improving Practice, 43, 13-121 Cashin, WE, de Downey, RG. (1992), Using global student ating ions for summative evaluation. Jounal of Eiucatinal Peychology, 848), 63-572. Centra, JA, (19738), Esfectveness of stent feedback in modifying college instruction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 6, 395-401 Cetra, JA. (19730). The student as godther? The impact of student ratings on academia, In A.L. Socklot (eA), Proceedings ofthe First Invitational Conference on Faculty Efectvenes as Evalusted by Shue Pruladlpia: Temple University, Measurement and Research Center, (Clark, KE, & Keller, RJ. (1954). Sdent ratings of college teaching, In RA. Eckert), A university looks at lus program. Misneaplis: University of Minnesota Press. Con, J, a Hamphreys, LG. (1960). Memorandum to feclty (onpublshed manssri). University of linos, Department of Psychology. Coben, PA. (1989). Do grades infuence students’ evaluations of clinical courses? Journal of Dental Eicon, $38), 28-24,162 LAM. ALEAMONI ‘Coben, RA. (1981), Effectiveness of student rating feedback and consultation for improving instruction in dena schols. Jounal of Dental Education, 852), 145-150 ‘Conran, RD. (1991). High sebool student evaluation of stent teacher: How do they compare with profesional? Hino Scho! Research and Development, 2702), 81-92. ‘Contin, F, Greenough, WE, Menges, RJ. (1971) toon rings of college twaching:Reiciity,valiiy, snd usofulnes. Review of Educational Research, 41, 511-835. ‘Deming, WE, (1972), Memorandum on teching, The American Stal, 26, 47, Dickinson, DJ. 1990). The relationship between ratings of teacher peeformance and student lerning. Contemporary Educational Peychlogy, 152), 142-181 Divoky, JJ, & Rothennel, M.A. (1988. Student perceptions of the relative importance of dimensions of teaching performance across iype of clas, Educational Research Quarterly, 12(3), 40-8. Donaldson, JF, Fantery, D., & Ros- Gordon, J (1993). A tlangulated study comparing adult college studons’ perceptions of effective teaching with those of tational students. Continuing Higher Education Review, $73), 187-165, Downie, NE.W. (1952). Student evaluation of faculty. Journal of Higher Education, 23, 498-496, 503. Doyle, K.0,, de Whiely, 8.5. (1974). Student ratings as cite for effective teaching, American Eucational Research Journal, 1, 258-214, Drews, DR., Buroughs, Wal, & Nokovich, DA. (1987). Techerselfatings as a validity eitrion for student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology, (0), 23-28. Drucker, A. de Remets, HLH, (1981), Do alum and students de in their atu toward instructors? ownal of Educational Pychology 42, 128-18, Dikes, RL, de Victoria, G. (1099). The effets of gondr, status, and effective teaching onthe evaluation of college insracton. Teaching Soiolgy, 170), 447-457 ile, CD, Loup, KS, & Calross, RR. (1997). Assessing enhancement of leaning, personal leaming envionment, aid Roden efficacy: Altrative to traditional fly evaltion in higher education, Jounal of Personne! Brauation i Education, 11(2), 167-192 Every, J.C, & Aleamoni LIM. (1972). These and fal ofthe advisor: Stadens aterm to evaluate thet Insets. Journal ofthe National Associaton of Cllegs and Teachers of Agriculture, 16(2), 8-45. Feldman, KA. (1978), Course characteristics and college students ratings of thee teachers: What we know snd what we don't. Rescarch in Higher Education, 8, 199-242. Feldman, K.A. (1989, The sssocition between student tings of specific instil dimensions and studeatachievemeat: Refining and extending the symhess of dats frm muliseean validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 306), 583-645, Feldman, K-A (199), College students’ views of male and female college teachers: Part H, Evidence fom odens evaluations oftheir classroom teachers. Research in ligher Education, 34(), 151-21. emandez, J, & Mateo, M.A. (197). Student and faculty gender aig of university eachng quliy. Sex Roies: Journal of Research, S1(U1-12), 997-1003. Freeman, HR, (1999) Sidon evaluations of college istracon: Exe of type of coure ugh, instructor sender and gender role, and stent gender. Journal of Educational Payehotogy, 64), 627-530. Fre, PW, (1973). Stadnt ratings of teaching: Vali of several ling factor. Selence, 182, 83-85. Frey, PW. (1978) A two-dimensional analysis of student ratings of instuction. Research in Higher Eduction, 9, 8-81. ‘Gags, NL (1961), The appraisal of college teaching. Jounal of Higher Education, 32, 17-22. (Gessner, PK (1973). Evaluation of instruction. Science, 180, 66-563. Giglot, RL, & Bucks, FS. (1990). Atsibuional bis and course evaluations. Jownal of Educational Prychology, 820), 341-351 Gillmore, GM. (1973. Estimates of reliability cofeients for sems and subscales ofthe Ins Course valuation Questionnaire (Research Report No. 341) Libana: University of Minois, Office of Instructional Resoutees, Measurement, and Research Division, Gillmore, GM, & Brandenburg, D.C. (1978), Would the proportion of suuents taking a class as @ requirement afet the student raring ofthe couse? (Research Report No, 347), Urban: University of Mins, Ottce of Inructional Resources, Measurement, and Research Divison[STUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS. 163 Goldberg, G,& Callan J. (1991. Objectivity of student evaluations of instructors Journal of Education for Busnes, 66(0, 377-378. ‘Goldman, (1998). On te erosion of education andthe eroding foundation of teacher education (or why We sould not take student evaluation of faulty seriously. Teacher Education Quarterly, 202), 57-64 ‘Goodhart, AS. (1948), Stent atitades and opinions relating to teaching at Brockiyn College. School and Soviet, 68, 345-349. ‘Goodin, LD, & Stevens, E.A. (1983). The influonce of gender on univessity faculty member pereptions of good" teaching. Jounal of Higher Education, 64(2), 166-185. Gash, LE, & Costin, F (1975). The student a6 consumer of the teaching process. American Educational Research Journal, 12, 38-66 “Guth, ER. (1949). The evaluation of teaching. Educational Record, 20, 109-115, Guthrie, ER. (1934). The evaluation of taching: A progress report Seatle: University of Washinton Hancock, GIR, Shannon, DM, & Trentham, LL. (1992), Stodon ad weschergondee ratings of university faculty: Resuls from fie colleges of study. Journal of Perzonel Evaluation in Educatin, (3), 235-248 arrsen, PD. Ryan, JM, d Moore, PS (1996) College stents sel-insight an commen implicit theories sn rings of waching effectiveness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 884), 715-78. ati, N. (1996). University insretors” ating profiles: Sabiliy over ine, and disciplinary differences. Research in Higher Education, 37@), 341-365. Hayes, LR. (1971. Reseach, teaching and faculty fate. Science, 172, 227-230 Hosiman, ID, & Armentrout, WD. (1936). The rating of clloge teachers on ten tits by thee students. ow'nal of Educational Pychology, 27, 191-216, Hildeband, M., Wisoa, RC, & Dienst, ER. (1971). Bvaluang university reaching. Berkley: University of Califorin, Center for Reseach and Developrent Higher Education Hogan, TP. (1973). Similar of student ratings across instructor, courses and time. Research in Higher Edvction, 1, 149-158, Tisacso, RL, MeKeachie, WI, Milhlland,.E, Lin, 6G, Hoe, M, Buerwalt:W. & Zinn, KL. (1964, Dimensions of student evalations of teaching. Journal of Educuional Psycholog), $5, 344-351 Tohanessen, TA. (1997), What is import t stodete? Explring dimensions in their evaluations of teachers, Scandinavian Jounal of Educational Research $12), 165-177. ‘Kiestead,D, D'Agostin,P, & Dll, H. (1988). Sex role stereotyping of college professors: Bias in studens! ratings of insiructors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80), 42-344. Kola, RG. (1973). A comparison of faculty eyaluaonsealy and late in the couse Journal of Higher Eaucaion, 4, 587-595, ‘Koon, & Murray, H.G. Using muliple outcomes to validate student eatings of overall eacher effectiveness. owrnal of Higher Educarion, 651), 61-81. ‘Krehbiel, TC, & associates (1997), Using student dsconirmation as a measure of classtoom effectiveness. Journal of Eduction for Business, 724), 224-229, L'Hominedicu, R, Menges, RJ, Brinko, KT. (1990). Methodological explanations for modest effects of feedback ftom sodent ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 232-241 Lin, WY. (1982) Is clas size a bias to student catagsof university fauly? A review. Chinese University of auction Journal, 200), 49-83, Linky, AS, Stas, M.A, (1975), Stadt evaluations, seach productivity and eminence of college faculty. Fownal of Higher Education, 46, 89-102. ‘Lovell, GD., & Hane, CF. (1955). Foced-choice applied to college faculty rating. Educational and Paychological Measurement, 15, 291-308 ‘dwg, .M, & Meacham, 1A. (1997) Teaching controversial courses: Stent evluatins of instructor and content, Edwcational Research Quarterly, 21(), 27-3 ‘Luck, TL. (1993) The interaction effects of gender on teaching evaluations. Journalism Eiuctor, 480), 25-248. ‘Madoc, A. (1987), Stedent views on excelent courses. Agricultural Edweaion Magazin, 60(3), 19-22, ‘Matlin, .W, J. (1987) Student perceptions of end-of-couse evaluation, Journal of Higher Education, S86), oes.164 LM. ALEAMONI Marsh, HW. (1977). The validity of stents” evaluations: Classroom evaluations of instuctrs independently nominated as best and worst tschers by graduating senior, American Educational Research Journal 14, 441-489 Marsh, H.W. (1984) Students’ evalustions of university teaching: Dimension ool bites, and lity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 207-154, ‘Manh H.W, (1987) Studons” evaluations af university teaching: Research findings, metadolgical issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11), 253-388. Marsh, H.W, Bailey, M, (1993) Multidimensional students’ evaluation of etching efectivencss, Journal of Higher Edveaion, 64(1), 1-1 Marsh, LW, lene, H., & Thomas, CS. (1975) Validiy and usefulness of stdont evaluations of instevtional quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 833-839 Marsh, H.W, Overall, 1U., & Kesler, SP (1979). Class size, student evaluations, and instructional effectiveness, American Educational Research Jounal, 16, 5-69 Marsh, HW. & Overall, 1U, (1979) Long-tesm sabiity of students” evalstons: A note of Fldman's consisoncy and variability among college students in rating tei teachers and courses, Research in Higher education, 10, 139-147, Mars HAW, & Roche, L (1993). The ute of student’ evaluation and an individually srtured intervention to enhanc university teaching etfeciveness. American Eucational Research Journal, 30() 217-251 Maslow, AH, & Zimmermn, W, (1956), Cllege teaching ably, scholarly activity end personality Journal of Educational Psychology, 47, 185-189, Mateo, MA. Fernandez, 1.1996) Incidence of elas size onthe evaluation of university teaching quality Bductional and Psychological Measurement, SS), TT MeBoan, FA. (1991). Analyses of teaching and course questionnaires: A ase study Enginecring Education, 8118), 439-441, MeBean, EA, & Lennox, W.. (1987). Measurement of quality of teaching and course by a single question versus a weighed set. European Journal of Engineering Education, 128), 329-335, MeDasil, ED.,& Feldhasea, LF (1970), Relationships between faculty ratings ad indexes of service and scholarship, Proceedings ofthe Seventy. Eighth Annual Convention ofthe American Prychologcal Association, 5, 619-600. “MeGiath, B (1962). Characteristics of oustanding college teachers, Journal of Higher Education, 33, MeKeactie, WJ. (197). Studeat ratings of faculty: A reprise. Academe, 65, 384-297 Mekeschie, Wl Lin, ¥.G, & Mendelson, CN. (1978). A small study asesing teacher ffectvenes: Does leaming lst? Contemporary, Edueational Psychology, 3, 382-357. Melland HI (1996). Great researcher... god teicher? Journal of Profesional Narsng, 121), 31-38, Menges, RJ (1973). The new epoiers: Studentsa instruction. In CR. Pace (9), New divectons in higher eucaton: evaluating learning and reaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Mille, MIT. (1971. Istctoratitudes toward, and ther se of, student ratings of teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 62, 235-238 Morisch, B.G., & Suter, WIN (1988), Comets of halo eor ia teacher evalustion. Eutcatonal Research Quarterly, 120), 29-34, Nimmer, 1G. & Stone, EF (1991), Eeets of grading practices and time of rating on stent ratings of faculty performance and student learning Research in Higher Education, 32(2), 198-215. Nall, E, & Nicholon, ENV, (1972). Penonal variables of students and their perception of university instrotors.Colege Sudent Journal, 6, 6-9 (O'Connell, DQ, & Dickenson, DJ. (1993). Student etings of instruction a funtion of esting conions and perceptions of amount cured. Journal of Research and Developmen in Education, 271), 18-23, (O'Roily, MT. (1987. Relationship of physical atactiveness 19 sudons ratings of taching effectiveness. ownal of Dental Eduction, $1(10), 600-602. Overal, LU, & Mah, H.W. (1979) Midirm foedback from students Is sltionship 10 instructional Improvement and stents” cognitive and affective outomes, Journal of Educational Payehology, 71, 836-865. Plchik, NS. (1988). Student assessment of teaching effectiveness in a ultvinsractor couse for multiiscptinary health professional stdents, Evaluation and the Health Professions, 11(), 85-73 iy, ib 1 vality,‘STUDENT RATING MYTHS VERSUS RESEARCH FACTS 165 Pony, RP, Abi, PC, & Leventhal, L. (1979). Edvcatinal seduction; The effect of nsictor expressiveness and fctre content on stant ratings and achievement Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, wr-ti6. Potchers, MK, & Chom J.C. (1988). Soares of variation in students" evaluations of nsrcton in a graduate social work program Journal of Social Work Education, 24(), 35-12. Poblmann, 17. (1975). A mulvariae analysis of selected class characterises and student ratings of inseuction, Muluvarate Behaloral Research, 101), 81-9 rave, RS. & Baril, GL, (1993). Instructor ratings: Conlin fr bias fom ini of Eduction for Busnes, 68(0), 362-366 Prosser, M, & Trigwell,K, (1990, Stent evaluation of fetching and courses: Student sy sratgies a a criterion of viliiy. Higher Education, 202), 135-142 ‘Rayder, NF (1968), Cllege stent ratings of insrutors, Journal of Esperimentl Edacation, 37, 16-8 Riley, LW, Ryan, BR, & Lipshitz, M. (1980) The student looks ths ache. New Brunswick, NJ: Rulers University res. Rodabaugh, .C., 4 Kravita,D.A. (199), Efors of procedural fines on student judgements of professors Journal on Excellence in Cllege Teaching, (2), 67-8. Rosin, M, Frey, PW, & Gessner, PK. (1975). Student evaluation. Seence, 187, S85-59, Rodin, M, & Rodin, B. (1972). Stadt evaluations of teacher. Science, 177, M6416 Ryan, 1M, & Haron, PD. (1995). The relationship between individual instructional characteristics andthe ‘overl assesimet of teaching effectiveness across different instructional contexts, Research and Development in Education, 36(9), SI7-894 Sallor,P, Worhes, BR, & Shin, LH. (1997), Clas level as a possible mediator ofthe raonsip between ‘rides and student ratings of teaching. Asetoment and Evaluation In Higher Education, 22C), 261-269 ‘Scherr, FC, & Scher, $5. (190), Bias in student evalunion of eacher effectiveness, Journal of Education for Business, 518), 356-358, ‘Sehmelkn, LP, & Spencer, KJ. (1997). Faculty perspectives on course and teacher evaluations. Research in Higher Education, 38), 75-92 Sctuekman H.(1950), Students’ perception of acl and grate stadents as clssroom ehers Teaching of Peychology, 173), 16216 ‘Schum, TR., & Vindra, KJ. (1996), Relationship between systematic feedback to faculty and ratings of line tesching, Academic Medicine, (10), 1100-1102. ‘Shapiro, E.G (19%), fect of instructor and clas charaeteristicson sant cas evaltions. Research in Higher Bduation, 32), 135-18. ‘Shepher, GJ, & Tank, DM. (1989). Individual diferences in consistency of evaluation: Student perceptions of teacher effectiveness, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20), 45-82 ‘Sherman, TM (1978). The effects of student formative evaluation of insructon on teacher behavior. Journal (of Educational Technology Syatems, 6, 208-217 ‘Shanske, S. (1988), On the measurement of teacher effectiveness, Journal of Economic Education, 118), 07-314, ‘Singhal, S. (1968). ino Course Evaluation Questionnaire items by rank of instructor, se ofthe insructor cand sex of the student (Research Report No. 282), Urbans: University of lini, Office of Insrvetonal Resouces, Measurement, and Research Division, ‘Stalin WM, & Singhal, S. (1968), Some obvervations on the relationships between produetvty and student eveluations of course and teaching (Research Report No, 274), Urban University of Minos, Ofie of Tnsteoal Resources, Measurement, and Research Dison ‘Stevens, J, & Aleamoni, LM. (1985). The use of evaluative feedback for nsrvetonal improvement: A Aongitusinal perspective. Insuctonal Science, 13, 285-304 Sullivan, AM, & Skanes, GR. (1974, Vly of shident evaluation of teaching andthe eharctenstes of succesflinsrucos, Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, S84-S9, ‘Summers, MA. Anderson, LL, Hines, AR., Gelder, B.C, & Dean, RS. (1996), The camera als more than pounds: Gonder differences in course sasfction for campus and distance leaning students. Jownal of esearch and Development in Education, 29(8), 212-219. 1 student intrest. Journal166 LM, ALEAMONI “Tang, TL-P, (1997), Teaching evalation xx public institution of higher education: actors related to the ‘overl etching effectiveness, Pubic Personnel Management, 263), 379-38, “Tir, CN. (1995), Gender effects on siden evaletions of fc. fournal of Reearch and Developmen in Education, 280), 108-173. “Teen, J MeCuokey, 1. (1997), The relationship of perceived teschereaing with student learning and teacher elution. Communications Education, 461), 1-9. “Tollfton, N, Chon, 1S. & Kleinsaser, A. (1989). The relationship of stdens' aides about effective teaching to stadens ratings of efetive teaching. Educational an Psychological Measwement, 43), 529— 336 “Thick, LR, (1993), Do grades lft faclty teaching evaluation? Joural of Optometric Education, 183), 88-92, ‘Work, V.W. (196), Publications snd teaching effectiveness. Journal of Higher Education, 33,212 Wu, ER, Mario, DJ, Skeff, KM, Suutos, GA, Litelman, DK. (1997), Phontizing areas for fuelty evelopment of linia teachers by using stant evalustions for evidence-based decisions. Academic Medicine, 7210), 57-89. ‘Walker, B.D. (1968), An investigation of selected variables relative to the manner in which «population of {onor college sides evaluate thee teachers. Dissertation Abstracts, 29-8), 3474 Ware, JE, & Willams, RG. (1977). Discriminate analysis of stadnt rings a6 & means of identifying lectres who dif in entusian ot information giving. Educational and Prchological Measurement, 37, 627-438 ‘Wiaters, M, Kemp, E. & Puce A. (1988). High and low faculty evaluations: Descriptions by students Teaching of Psychology, 15(), 208-204. ‘Watkins, D. (1990). Stadt ratings of teary courses for alternative calendar" purposes Assessment and valuation in Higher Education, 19), 12-21 ‘Wheees, VE. Poco, PF (1989). Student asessment of teacher masculinity and femininity: test of the sex ole congrucay hypothesis on sadent ates toward leaming. Journal of Educational Psychology, 812), 259-262 ‘Wilkoa,R. (1998), New research cans doubt on value of comparing al college studenls perceptions of effetiveieaching with thse of wadtionalstadons. Chronicle of Higher Educarion, #4(19), AL2-Al. inocu, S. Sehoen, LG. & Sirowatka, AH, (1989), Perceptions of male and female academies within a tesching context. Research in Higher Education, 30(), 317-329. "Wood, K., Linsky, AS., & Sins, MA. (1974), Clas size and stdent evaluations of faculty. Journal af Higher Fducation, 48, 24-83 ‘Yongkitikl, C, Gilmore, GM, & Dandenbur, D.C. (1974), Doet the tine of course meting afer couse totings by students? (Research Report No. 346). Urbana: University of Minot, Offce of Instracionsl Resourees, Measurement, and Research Division. Zahn, DK, & Schramm, RM. (1992). Suudent perception of teacher effectiveness based on teacher employment ahd course sil level. Business Education Forum, 46(3), 16-18,