Further evidence of problems with evaluation of teaching

In a couple of recent posts (and this one) I’ve essentially been arguing that most evaluation of teaching at universities is actually worse the useless. The following quote from White (2006) provides some additional ammunition.

Research has suggested that grade leniency is the most significant factor in positive evaluation of teaching (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997; Marsh & Roche, 2000). These pressures may be resulting in grade inflation by some teachers and departments, and concomitantly, unrealistic student expectations with respect to the marks they should be awarded.

References

Greenwald, A. G., & Gilmore, G. M. (1997). ‘No pain no gain’: The importance of measuring course workload in student ratings of instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(4), 743–751.

Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (2000). Effects of grade leniency and low workload on students’ evaluations of teaching: Popular myth, bias, validity or innocent bystanders? Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(1), 202–228.

White, N. (2006). “Tertiary education in the Noughties: the student perspective.” Higher Education Research & Development 25(3): 231-246.

One thought on “Further evidence of problems with evaluation of teaching

  1. Pingback: Task corruption in teaching @ university - negative impact of Place? « The Weblog of (a) David Jones

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s