I've been looking at the results from our annual large-scale
survey to our 5500 families. As you would expect, there are a range of opinions
- and it can be hard to know how to interpret the conflicting 'please do
more X' and 'please do less X' comments.
One theme that emerged very clearly, however, was that it's
teachers who make the difference to students, and we were grateful for the
parents who told us about the immensely positive
transformations experiences that their children are undergoing with inspirational teachers.
But there were also many comments that asked us to formally involve students in
teacher appraisal and evaluation - sometimes with the implication that
there's a lot of stuff going on that school leadership does not know about.
![]() |
Teacher Evaluation A Hot Topic in many Schools and Countries |
In a busy organisation it's impossible for anyone person to know everything that's happening - but we do have to try. And I guess the notion is that students
are the ones receiving the teaching, so shouldn't they get a say?
There are two points here. Firstly, there is the moral need to treat
students with respect, and to hear their perspectives about how things are
going. Secondly, there is the analytic need to know how to
interpret data that comes from students (given that getting this second
point wrong will damage student education, that's also close to being a moral need too).
In this post I want to suggest that what we know about the second
point should directly inform the first point; and that we should not simply
ask students to evaluate teachers. To prevent this post from being too
long, I'll follow up next week with some details about how, despite this, we still can
and should involve students.
So why is student evaluation of teachers a bad idea?
What we know is that using students to evaluate teachers can be
very problematic for many reasons - often because there is confusion between a
teacher's popularity (he's a nice or funny or charming
person) and a teacher's effectiveness (students learn a lot). The
two are not entirely independent of course, but there is a clear
distinction. We should therefore be troubled by, for example, Uttl et
al's 2016 analysis that shows the correlation
between students' opinions of their teachers and what
they actually learn is close to zero. If this is right,
then it's a central flaw because it means we can learn nothing reliable from the evaluations. But it is at least better than Rodin and Rodin's
classic paper which suggests that it might even be worse than that - and
that in fact students rate most highly the teachers from whom they
learn least, and furthermore that students
don’t learn more from teachers with high ratings - so the evaluations may actually be inverted! Perhaps many
students will like a teacher who goes easy on a class and gives high grades for
mediocre work, thus leading students to feel good about themselves and
consequently give high ratings to that teacher. The teacher who sticks to
high standards, gives tough love and honest un-inflated grades, by contrast,
will likely not be so popular, and may receive lower ratings. Rodin and
Rodin speculate 'perhaps students resent instructors who force them to work
too hard and to learn more than they would wish'
This is not surprising to
experienced teachers who can distinguish between the long- and short-term effect of what they do,
based on years of experience. These teachers worry
that if the evaluations are high-stakes, there will be systemic pressure on
them to be popular rather than effective. I think we can all see where
that has led to if we look at the global political stage.
Nothing serious should be decided solely on popularity.
A further reason to doubt student capacity to
judge teachers is that judgement like this is subject to
serious bias. Hessler et al found that teachers who provided chocolate cookies during a course got significantly
higher evaluations than those that did not. No surprise there
either! Other biases are more serious. MacNell et al undertook
an ingenious online study, where teachers told one class they were male, and
one class they were female. They found that 'students gave
professors they thought were male much higher evaluations across the board than
they did professors they thought were female, regardless of what gender the
professors actually were. When they told students they were men, both the male
and female professors got a bump in ratings. When they told the students they
were women, they took a hit in ratings. Because everything else was the same
about them, this difference has to be the result of gender bias'.
So we know that student evaluations are problematic. So
what? Let me return to and affirm the first point - that there is a moral
need to involve students; and to hear their voices. So how can we do
it?
It is possible to do; but it involves different approach, away from an
evaluative consumer model to a collaborative one.
I'll write about that in some detail next week.
References
Hessler et al (2018) Availability of cookies during an academic course session affects evaluation of teaching. Medical Education 52(10):1064-1072
Kirschner, P and Neelen, M (2017) Student Teacher Ratings: Males are Brilliant, Females are Bossy
MacNell L., Driscoll A., Hunt A. N. (2016) What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching Innovative Higher Education Aug 2015, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 291–303
Hessler et al (2018) Availability of cookies during an academic course session affects evaluation of teaching. Medical Education 52(10):1064-1072
Kirschner, P and Neelen, M (2017) Student Teacher Ratings: Males are Brilliant, Females are Bossy
MacNell L., Driscoll A., Hunt A. N. (2016) What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching Innovative Higher Education Aug 2015, Volume 40, Issue 4, pp 291–303
Marcotte, A. (2014) Best
Way for Professors to Get Good Student Evaluations? Be Male. Slate Dec
9 2014
Miller, C.C, (2015) Is
the Professor Bossy or Brilliant? Much Depends on Gender New York
Times 6 Aug 2015
Rodin and Rodin Student Evaluation
of Teachers Science 29 Sep 1972:Vol. 177, Issue 4055, pp1164-1166
Uttl, R, White, C.A. adn Wong Gonzales, D (2017) Meta-analysis
of faculty's teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and
student learning are not related Studies in Educational Evaluation
Volume 54, Pages 22-42
Erik Voeten Student evaluations of teaching are probably biased. Does it matter? Washington Post Oct 2 2013
Addendum
Just came across this -
Carrell, S. E and West, J.E (2010) Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence fromRandom Assignment of Students to Professors
Excerpts:
We compare metrics that capture these three different notions of instructional quality and present evidence that professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement teach in ways that improve their student evaluations but harm the follow-on achievement of their students in more advanced class...
Results show that there are statistically significant and sizable differences in student achievement across introductory course professors in both contemporaneous and follow-on course achievement. However, our results indicate that professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement, on average, harm the subsequent performance of their students in more advanced classes. Academic rank, teaching experience, and terminal degree status of professors are negatively correlated with contemporaneous value-added but positively correlated with follow-on course value-added. Hence, students of less experienced instructors who do not possess a doctorate perform significantly better in the contemporaneous course but perform worse in the follow-on related curriculum.
We compare metrics that capture these three different notions of instructional quality and present evidence that professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement teach in ways that improve their student evaluations but harm the follow-on achievement of their students in more advanced class...
Results show that there are statistically significant and sizable differences in student achievement across introductory course professors in both contemporaneous and follow-on course achievement. However, our results indicate that professors who excel at promoting contemporaneous student achievement, on average, harm the subsequent performance of their students in more advanced classes. Academic rank, teaching experience, and terminal degree status of professors are negatively correlated with contemporaneous value-added but positively correlated with follow-on course value-added. Hence, students of less experienced instructors who do not possess a doctorate perform significantly better in the contemporaneous course but perform worse in the follow-on related curriculum.
No comments:
Post a Comment