Explore the vast range of titles available.

A significant body of work problematises the assumption that student evaluations of teaching (SET) actually measure teaching quality. This is concerning, given that SET are increasingly relied upon not only to evaluate candidates for employment (so job acquisition is influenced by flawed data) but also to inform performance metrics for those in employment (so job security is influenced by flawed data). This paper presents qualitative research conducted at a large public university in Australia. The findings suggest that student evaluations of teaching seem to measure conformity with gendered expectations rather than teaching quality, with particularly negative effects for women. The integration of SET into performance management practices within institutions of higher education could be entrenching inequalities amongst university staff that could ultimately disadvantage female academics.

Research on Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) has indicated that course design is at least as important as teachers’ performance for student-rated perceived quality and student engagement. Our data analysis of more than 6000 SETs confirms this. Two hierarchical multiple regression models revealed that course design significantly predicts perceived quality more strongly than teachers, and that course design significantly predicts student engagement independent of teachers. While the variable teachers is a significant predictor of perceived quality, it is not a significant predictor of student engagement. In line with previous research, the results suggest it is important to highlight the vital impact of course design. The results are discussed particularly in relation to improved teaching practice and student learning, but also in terms of how student evaluations of teaching can be used in meaningful ways.

Today, modern educational models are concerned with the development of the teacher-student experience and the potential opportunities it presents. User-centric analyses are useful both in terms of the socio-technical perspective on data usage within the educational domain and the positive impact that data-driven methods have. Moreover, the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in education and process innovation has emerged due to the strategic perspectives and the process monitoring that have shown to be missing within the traditional education curricula. This study shows that there is an unprecedented increase in the amount of text-based data in different activities within the educational processes, which can be leveraged to provide useful strategic intelligence and improvement insights. Educators can apply the resultant methods and technologies, process innovations, and contextual-based information for ample support and monitoring of the teaching-learning processes and decision making. To this effect, this paper proposes an Educational Process and Data Mining (EPDM) model that leverages the perspectives or opinions of the students to provide useful information that can be used to enhance the end-to-end processes within the educational domain. Theoretically, this study applies the model to determine how the students evaluate their teachers by considering the gender of the teachers. We analyzed the underlying patterns and determined the emotional valence of the students based on their comments in the Students Evaluation of Teaching (SET). Thus, this work implements the proposed EPDM model using SET comments captured in a setting of higher education.

This paper examines the volume and type of anonymous comments academics receive in student evaluations of courses and teaching (SETs) at the 16,000 higher education institutions that collect this data at the end of each teaching period. Existing research has increasingly pointed to the negative issues of student surveys, but very little research has focused on the volume, type, and impact of anonymous student comments on academics. This paper analyses the survey results of 674 academics to inform higher education leaders and the sector more widely of the amount and type of abusive comments academics are receiving. The work also demonstrates that the highest volume, most derogatory, and most threatening abuse is directed towards women academics and those academics from marginalised groups. The paper finds that previous estimates of the rate and severity of abusive comments that academics receive, and the impact to academics’ wellbeing, mental health, and career progression, have underestimated what is taking place. The paper argues that many universities are failing to protect their staff from this abuse, and the prejudice nature of SET results, which will continue to have a negative impact on the career progression of marginalised academics - a major flaw in a sector that prides itself on diversity and inclusion.

This paper summarizes the discourse on student ratings of teaching in higher education. It reconceptualizes student ratings within a larger process of promoting quality in teaching and student learning. As students engage in productive dialogue with teachers and administrators, metrics drawn from decontextualized surveys are admittedly a vital resource. Our paper contends, however, that student ratings can only become a tool for enhancement when they feed reflective conversations about improving the learning process and when these conversations are informed by the scholarship of teaching and learning. We illustrate this view with a case study of an Engineering Faculty that uses three interconnected initiatives to support an evolving conversation on quality among teachers in partnership with students. The role of student engagement in enhancement efforts is discussed as well as potential challenges to implementation. Our purpose is to spark wider discussion of a systems perspective on student ratings that supports a coherent discourse towards positive change.

Student teachers consider cooperating teachers to be one of the most important contributors to their teacher preparation program. Therefore, the ways in which cooperating teachers participate in teacher education are significant. This review seeks to move conceptions of that participation beyond commonly held beliefs to empirically supported claims. The analysis draws on Brodie, Cowling, and Nissen's notion of categories of participation to generate 11 different ways that cooperating teachers participate in teacher education: as Providers of Feedback, Gatekeepers of the Profession, Modelers of Practice, Supporters of Reflection, Gleaners of Knowledge, Purveyors of Context, Conveners of Relation, Agents of Socialization, Advocates of the Practical, Abiders of Change, and Teachers of Children. When set against Gaventa's typology of participation, the resultant grid highlights the importance of negotiated or invited spaces for cooperating teacher participation and provides a new way of thinking about, planning professional development for, and working with cooperating teachers.

Background Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET), of individual instructors and of courses, are routinely utilized by university administrators for consequential decisions regarding individual faculty members, courses, and curricula. Despite their ubiquity, much evidence exists that they are biased, amongst other factors by expected and received student grades. To our knowledge, this issue has not been examined in veterinary education until recently. Furthermore, it remains unclear whether observed combinations of higher grades and more favorable student evaluations using common survey instruments reflect enhanced learning. Our study evaluates the relationship between (A) student evaluations of courses in a veterinary curriculum, (B) grades earned in those courses, and (C) an independent measure of learning in those subjects. Methods The Veterinary Educational Assessment (VEA) is an independent, external examination in basic sciences subjects prepared by the National Board of Medical Examiners and administered by the International Council for Veterinary Assessment and is taken by Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine (RUSVM) students in their fifth semester of study. It offers an external means of measuring student learning in specific subjects and relating them to course evaluations. RUSVM has three terms each year with three separate intakes of students. Course evaluations and student grades were recorded for courses from fall 2018 to summer 2022, spanning 12 cohorts of students, and 160 individual courses. Courses were aligned to the relevant section of the VEA taken by each cohort. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated. Results Mean course evaluations were significantly positively correlated to median grade in the course ( rho  = 0.35, P  < 0.0001) and the proportion of students earning A-grades ( rho  = 0.38, P  < 0.0001). The relationship between course evaluation and relevant VEA score was negative ( rho  = -0.18, P  = 0.02), indicating that students judged courses favorably when higher grades were expected without necessarily learning more from those courses. Conclusions We confirmed the well-known relationship between SET and student grades but, for the first time in veterinary medicine, describe a small but negative and statistically significant relationship between SET and an independent measure of learning. SET should be interpreted with caution; their use for evaluation of teachers or courses may have unintended consequences including reduced expectations for student achievement.

Background Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) provide educators feedback to improve the quality of instruction; however, response rates often are low. Incentives may be used, but there is limited data on their effect on SETs response rates and course means. Method This study used a descriptive study design. Results A total of 250 courses were included in the data review. SETs response rates were significantly higher in those courses that offered an incentive, yet course means were higher in courses that did not offer an incentive. SETs response rates were higher for required courses; course means were higher for non-clinical and elective courses. Conclusion This study adds to the body of evidence regarding the use of incentives for completing SETs and other factors that may influence response rates and course means. This study found that incentives increased response rates on SETs without affecting course ratings.

Students' evaluations of teaching are increasingly used by universities to evaluate teaching performance. However, these evaluations are controversial mainly due to fact that students value various aspects of excellent teaching differently. Therefore, in this paper we propose a new approach to students' evaluations of university teaching based on data from conjoint analysis. Conjoint analysis is a multivariate technique used to analyze the structure of individuals' preference. In particular, our approach accounts for different importance students attach to various aspects of teaching. Moreover, it accounts explicitly for heterogeneity arising from students' preferences, and incorporates it to form comprehensive teaching evaluation score. We have conducted survey and confirmed applicability and efficiency of the proposed approach.

Student comments are routinely collected in university evaluation surveys for the purpose of improving teaching and learning. Whilst student comments provide valuable insights into their experiences, there is limited published research reporting the extent to which student comments are offensive and professional. The aim of this study was to investigate the number of student comments that were identified as being offensive or unprofessional in an online unit evaluation survey collected in a semester in 2010 from an Australian university. One person read 30,684 comments taken from 17,855 surveys and identified comments considered to be abusive or unprofessional. Comments were categorised as either abusive or unprofessional and by the intended target (that is, teacher, unit, resource). Thirteen abusive comments (0.04 % of the sample) were identified. Five abusive comments were directed at the teacher and eight were targeted at teaching and learning experiences. Forty-six comments (0.15 % of the sample) were identified as unprofessional. Of these, seven comments were directed at the teacher and 34 were about units. This suggests that the vast majority of students do not abuse the privilege of giving anonymous feedback. Strategies identified in this paper to educate students and give appropriate feedback can be adopted by universities to minimise offensive comments. Universities can educate students and teachers in appropriate and professional ways of working together, in providing professional feedback to improve the student experience in teaching and learning and to support and mentor teachers in their academic careers. (HRK / Abstract übernommen).