PsychologicalReports, 2005, 96,225-226.

O Psychological Reports 2005

STUDENTS' RATINGS OF TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS:

A LAUGHING MATTER? '

GARY ADAMSON, DAMIAN O'KANE, MARK SHEVLIN

University of Ulster at Magee College

Summay.-Gump in 2004 identified a positive significant relationship between

awareness of daily class objectives and ratings of the instructor's overall teaching effec-
tiveness. The idea that rating of teaching effectiveness can be related to other non-
teaching related attributes of the lecturer was further examined. Correlations based on
ratings of teaching effectiveness from 453 undergraduate students (M= 2 1 yr., SD =
5.5; 73% women) showed that another nonteaching related variable, namely, how fun-
ny the instructor was perceived, was significantly related to indicators of teaching ef-
fectiveness.

The practice of having students evaluate teaching in universities is wide-

spread in the UK and the USA, and the information from such surveys can
be a useful guide for potential changes in course material and method of de-
livery (QAA, 1997). For students' evaluation of teaching questionnaires to be
used there should be clear evidence that such measures are producing valid
scores, that is, that such questionnaires are actually measuring teaching effec-
tiveness.
Research suggests that ratings of teaching effectiveness are positively re-
lated to teaching and student-related variables such as awareness of daily
class objectives (Gump, 2004), expected grades (Feldman, 1976; Marsh,
1987), the students' prior interest in the topic (Marsh & Roche, 1997), and
grading leniency (Greenwald & Gillmore, 1997). More alarmingly Shevlin,
Banyard, Davies, and Griffiths (2000) tested a model that specified ratings of
the lecturers' charisma, measured by a single item, as a predictor of teaching
effectiveness, in particular 'lecturer ability7 and 'module attributes'. Using
structural equation modeling, they found that the charisma ratings account-
ed for 69% of the variation of the lecturer ability factor and 37% of the
module attributes factor.
The idea that ratings of teaching effectiveness can be related to other
nonteaching related attributes of the lecturer was further examined. An ad-
ditional item, "The lecturer was funny," was included in a larger question-
naire designed to measure teaching effectiveness. All items used a 5-point Li-
kert response format with anchors of 1 (Strongly Disagree) and 5 (Strongly
Agree). This questionnaire was administered at a UK university to a sample

'Address correspondence to Dr. Mark Shevlin, School of Psychology, University of Ulster at

Magee Campus, Londonderry, BT48 7JL, UK.
226 G. ADAMSON, ET AL.

of 453 undergraduate students who were enrolled in full-time courses within

a department of social sciences (M age = 21 yr., SD = 5.5; 73 % women). In
total six lecturers were rated (four men and two women) in this study.
Analysis showed items designed to reflect aspects of effective teaching
were positively correlated with rating of how funny the lecturer was. Scores
from the item "The lecturer was funny" were positively correlated with
scores on the items "The lecturer helped me to develop an interest in the
subject matter" (r = .60, p < .OI), "I wanted to learn more about the topic"
( r = .49, p < .O1), "The lectures were well organised" (r = .40, p < .O1), and
"The lecturer is successful in encouraging students to do supplementary
reading on the subject matter of the module" (r = 38, p < .OI).
The results suggest that students' perceptions of funniness were moder-
ately and significantly associated with ratings of teaching related activity.
Whereas previous research has focused mainly on the dimensionality of mea-
sures of teaching effectiveness (Abrami, d7Apollonia, & Rosenfield, 1997), it
is suggested here that the validity of scores derived from any measure of
teaching effectiveness ought to be ascertained prior to use of the measure.
REFERENCES
~ R A M l?I ,C., D ~ ~ O L L O N
S.,I A
&ROSENFIELD,
, S. (1997) The dimensionality of student ratings
of instruction: what we know and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.),
Effective teaching in higher education: research and practice. New York: Agathon Press.
Pp. 321-367.
FELDMAN, K. A. (1976) Grades and college students' evaluations of their courses and teachers.
Research in Higher Education, 18, 3-124.
GREENWALD, A. G., &GILLMORE, G. M. (1997) Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of
student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209-1217.
GUMP,S. E. (2004) Daily class objectives and instructor's effectiveness as perceived by stu-
dents. Psychological Reports, 94, 1250-1252.
W R S H ,H. W. (1987) Students' evaluations of university teaching: research findings, method-
ological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Re-
search, 11, 253 -388.
MARSH,H. W., & ROCHE,L. A. (1997) Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness
effective. American Psychologist, 52, 1187-1197.
Q U A LASSURANCE
I~ AGENCY FOR HIGHER EDUCATION. (1997) Subject review handbook: October
1998 to September 2000. (QAA 1/97) London: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Ed-
ucation.
SHEVLIN, M., BANYARD, l?, DAVIES, M. D., &GRIFFITHS, M. (2000) The validity of student evalu-
ation of teaching in higher education: love me, love my lectures? Assessment and Evalua-
tion in Higher Education, 25, 3 97-405.

Accepted Februa y 2, 2005.