Return to academic standards: a critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness
| Published date | 01 March 2003 |
| Pages | 37-46 |
| Date | 01 March 2003 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462074 |
| Author | Charles R. Emery,Tracy R. Kramer,Robert G. Tian |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Return to academic
standards: a critique of
student evaluations of
teaching effectiveness
Charles R. Emery
Tracy R. Kramer and
Robert G. Tian
Background
A current practice among colleges and
universities in the USA is for the
administration to use a student evaluation
instrument of teaching effectiveness as part of
the faculty member's performance evaluation.
In a study that tracked the use of student
evaluations of faculty in 600 colleges between
1973 and 1993, Seldin (1993) found that the
use of student evaluations of teaching
effectiveness (SETE) increased from 29
percent to 86 percent. If these instruments are
used in isolation, as they frequently are, and
without alternative or collaborative measures,
then students become the primary
determinant of a lecturer's success or failure
in his or her academic career. At institutions
that emphasize teaching (as opposed to
research), higher-than-average levels of
teaching effectiveness are often expected.
Therefore, it follows that student
measurements of teaching effectiveness have
the potential to buoy or sink a lecturer's
career. When students are empowered to
yield this much influence over the career's of
their lecturers, combined with the demands
on the lecturers for increasing course loads,
student enrollments and student satisfaction,
the long-term results may very well be an
overall reduction in program quality.
One school of thought at many business
schools is that students should be viewed as
the products of the business program, rather
than its customers (Emery et al., 2001). In
other words, the lecturers are the immediate
customers and industry/society is the ultimate
customer. From this position, it is clear that
the use of SETE, which implicitly captures
lecturer popularity, is inappropriate for
measuring instructional effectiveness (i.e.
learning). Ironically, while business
departments purport to use student appraisals
to increase total quality, Deming (1986) has
suggested that the practice is inaccurate and
demoralizing.
In addition to criticisms of the evaluation
philosophy and the validity of the instrument,
there is reason to criticize the use SETE as the
only method of evaluating teaching
effectiveness. Comm and Mathaisel (1998)
observed that in some industries,
subordinates are used to evaluate their bosses
but never as the only measure of supervisor
effectiveness. Typically, this is used as the
least weighted of several methods to ascertain
The authors
Charles R. Emery is Assistant Professor of Management,
Lander University, Greenwood, South Carolina, USA.
Tracy R. Kramer and Robert G. Tian are Associate
Professors of Business Administration, both at Erskine
College, Due West, South Carolina, USA.
Keywords
Teachers, Evaluation, Performance, Effectiveness,
Students
Abstract
A student evaluation of teaching effectiveness (SETE) is
often the most influential information in promotion and
tenure decision at colleges and universities focused on
teaching. Unfortunately, this instrument often fails to
capture the lecturer's ability to foster the creation of
learning and to serve as a tool for improving instruction.
In fact, it often serves as a disincentive to introducing
rigour. This paper performs a qualitative (e.g. case
studies) and quantitative (e.g. empirical research)
literature review of student evaluations as a measure of
teaching effectiveness. Problems are highlighted and
suggestions offered to improve SETEs and to refocus
teaching effectiveness on outcome-based academic
standards.
Electronic access
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is
available at
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0968-4883.htm
37
Quality Assurance in Education
Volume 11 .Number 1 .2003 .pp. 37-46
#MCB UP Limited .ISSN 0968-4883
DOI 10.1108/09684880310462074
To continue reading
Request your trial