Student Perceptions of Teaching Evaluations

Michael J. Brown

This study examines how students perceive official student evaluations of teaching
(SETs) and unofficial mid-semester evaluations (MSEs). It also examines whether
completing a MSE affects students' perceptions of the course and the instructor.
A survey revealed that participants (N = 80) believed SETs are valid measures of
teaching; however, they had doubts about whether students or instructors take these
evaluations seriously. On the other hand, participants had very positive perceptions of
MSEs and instructors who conduct them. Furthermore, completing a MSE positively
affected perceptions of the instructor's responsibility, his commitment to teaching,
and his desire for the class to do well. Implications and limitations of these results
are discussed.

Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) in their evaluations of instructors over time.

are widely used in higher education to assess
instructors' performance and to provide a
means of accountability for the college or
university (Williams & Ceci, 1997). Adminis-
trators routinely use SETs when making deci-
sions about the hiring, tenure, and promotion
of instructors (Newport, 1996). These evalu-
ations are also sometimes made available to
students for use in course selection (Marsh
1987). However, there is a debate over the
utility of SETs for these purposes.
Critics argue that SETs are prone to bias
and that students are incapable of effectively
evaluating teaching (e.g. Wachtel,1998). Be-
cause SETs have become such an important
factor in employment decisions, instructors
may be temped to grade leniently, and as
a result, academic standards may suffer.
Proponents contend that students are indeed
capable of evaluating teaching (Miller, 1988)
and that well-developed SETs serve as one of
the best measures of teaching effectiveness
(Hobson&Talbot,2001).
Research on the reliability and validity
of SETs is mixed. West (1988) found that
students were only moderately consistent
Michael J. Brown, Instructor, Brooklyn
College-CUNY.
Correspondence concerning this article
should be addressed to Michael J. Brown at
mbrown@brooklyn.cuny.edu
177
Furthermore, students' ratings can be influ-
enced by a variety of factors - including
class-size (Min & Baozhi, 1998), time of
day (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997), race and
attractiveness ofthe instructor (Rao, 1995),
and expected grade (Marsh & Roche, 2000).
On the other hand, a number of studies lend
support to the claim that SETs are reliable and
valid measures of teaching (e.g. Gamliel &
Davidovitz, 2005). Drew,Burroughs, and No-
kovish (1987) validated student evaluations
by assessing student-instructor agreement
about day-to-day variability within courses.
Students' reports were strongly related to
those of instructors.
Although the reliability and validity of
SETs has received much attention, relatively
few studies have examined how students per-
ceive these evaluations. Students seem to be
generally willing to complete SETs and try to
be fair and accurate (Spencer & Schmelkin,
2002). Students also tend to have confidence
in their ability to assess instructors. In one
survey, the majority of students believed that
SETs provide an effective measure of teach-
ing (Dwinell & Higbee, 1993). However, the
results of other surveys suggest that students
are skeptical about the utility of SETs. Spencer
and Schmelkin (2002) found that students do
not believe that instructors or administrators
take these evaluations seriously.
Even if SETs are valid measures of
 178/Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2
teaching, they pose a fundamental problem for
instructors being evaluated. Because SETs are
typically conducted at the end of the semester,
instructors do not have the opportunity to
make changes to the course for which they
are being evaluated. If instructors conducted
their own mid-semester evaluations (MSEs),
they should be able to better assess student
learning and make immediate changes to
their curriculum or teaching style. Price and
Goldman (1981) found that conducting MSEs
led to improved ratings on end-of-semester
evaluations. Conducting unofficial MSEs
may also convey to students a genuine interest
in how well they are learning.
The purpose of this study was to ex-
amine how students perceive official SETs
and unofficial MSEs. I was also interested
in whether completing MSEs would affect
how students perceive the course and the
instructor. Consistent with previous find-
ings, I expected students to perceive SETs
as effective measures but question the extent
to which instructors and other students take
them seriously. I also expected students to
have generally positive perceptions about
unofficial MSEs and that completing such
evaluations would positively affect how stu-
dents perceive the course and instructor.
Method
Participants
Participants (A^ = 80) were undergradu-
ates enrolled in an Experimental Psychology
course taught by the author in two consecu-
tive semesters. The majority of students were
psychology majors (91 %) and seniors in col-
lege (75%). Participation was voluntary, and
students did not receive any compensation.
Materials & Procedures
Six weeks into thefirstsemester, students
(n=40) in my Experimental Psychology class
completed an unofficial mid-semester evalu-
ation of the course. This evaluation asked
students to rate my performance, the pace of
the course, and the difficulty of the material.
Students were also asked to describe what
they liked best, and least, about the course
and how I could better facilitate learning. To
ensure that this feedback did not influence
my performance across semesters, I did not
look at these evaluations until all the data for
this study was collected. At the end of the
semester, participants completed a survey
about their perceptions of official SETs and
unofficial MSEs. The survey asked partici-
pants how often SETs should be conducted
and whether instructors should do their own
MSEs. Participants were also asked to rate
how much they agreed or disagreed with the
16 items listed in Table 3. Responses were
measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, with
1 being low on the scale and 7 being high.
Students (n = 40) in the second semester
class served as a control group. These par-
ticipants did not complete a mid-semester
evaluation; however, they did complete the
survey about SETs and MSEs at the end
of the semester. The instructions were ma-
nipulated to ask students how they thought
completing a mid-semester evaluation would
affect their perceptions of the course and the
instructor.
Results
Perceptions of Students Evaluations of
Teaching
One-sample / tests were conducted to
evaluate whether participants ' responses were
significantly different from 4, the middle-most
score on the scale. Overall, participants' were
indifferent about whether SETs are useful.
However, participants did believe that SETs
are important for hiring and promotion deci-
sions. Participants also believed that students
are honest in their evaluations and that SETs
are effective measures of teaching. However,
participants were indifferent about whether
instructors or students take SETs seriously.
In fact, participants believed that students are
likely to rate instructors based on the grade
they receive in the class and to use SETs to "get
back" at instructors. When asked how often
SETs should be conducted ,17.5% responded
 Teaching Evaluations.. /179

"several times a semester," 67.5% responded Evaluations

"once a semester," 3.75% responded "once a
year," and 11.25% responded "less than once
a year" or "never."
Perceptions of Mid-Semester Evaluations
Overall, participants had positive per-
ceptions of unofficial MSEs. In fact, the
majority of participants (88.75%) reported
that instructors should consider conducting
their own MSEs. Participants believed that
conducting MSEs would improve students
and instructors' performance, as well as
improve students and instructors' attitude
towards the class. Participants also believed
that conducting MSEs implies that the instruc-
tor has clear teaching goals, is committed to
teaching, is fulfilling his responsibility, and
has a desire to see students succeed.
Effects of Completing Mid-Semester
Independent-samples t tests revealed
several differences in perceptions between
students who completed a MSE and those
who did not. Students who completed a MSE
were more likely to believe that students
are honest in SETs, that SETs are accurate
measures of teaching, and that students take
SETs seriously. These participants were also
more likely to believe that conducting MSEs
implies that the instructor is committed to
teaching, is fulfilling his responsibility, and
has a desire to see the students do well.
Discussion
Consistent with previousfindings,par-
ticipants believed that SETs are honest and
accurate measures of teaching. At the same
time, participants expressed some doubt about
the validity and utility of SETs.Thus,students
may think they are effective evaluators of

Table 1
Students' Perceptions of Student Evaluations of Teaching

Effect Size
M (SD) df
SETs ^re useful
SETs important for hiring/promotion
Students are honest in SETs
SETs are accurate
Instructors take SETs seriously
Students take SETs seriously
Students evaluate based on grade
.Students use .SF.Ts to get hack at profs.
p<.05,**p<.01

Table 2
Students' Perceptions of Mid-Semester Evaluations

Ertect
M (SD) df
improve student performance
[mprove prof, perfonriance
Improve students' attitude toward class
:8**
Implies commitrnent to teaching 1.64**
Implies responsibility to students 1.44**
Implies desire to see students do well 1.57**
* 0 < .05. ** p < .01
 180i Journal of Instructional Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2

Table 3
Effects of Completing Mid-Semester Evaluations
MSEs No MSEs Effect
Size
M (SD) M (SD) df t
SETs are useful 4.42 (1.59) 4.00 (1.82) 77 .25
1.10
SBTs important for hiring/promotion 4.82 (1.43) 4.32 (1.85) 78 .30
1.36
Students are honest in SETs 5.10 (1.00) 4.05 (1.61) 78 .78**
3.50
SETs are accurate 5.08 (0.99) 4.27 (1.36) 78 .78**
3.10
Instructors take SETs seriously 4.46 (1.78) 3.98 (1.60) 78 .28
1.29
Students take SETs seriously 4.54 (1.64) 3.73 (1.82) 78 .47*
Students evaluate based on grade 4.82 (1.47) 4.98 (1.19) 78 .12
Students use SETs to get back at 4.46 (1-07) 4.37
- (1.18) 78 .08
F,.irofs.
_mprove student performance
Improve prof, perforniance
4.67 (1.C
(10
5.08 (1.0
4.70 (1.02)
5.18 (1.32)
77
0.38
.03
.08
Improve students' attitude toward 4.
4.67 (1.0 4.97 (1.27) L18 .26
class
'mprpve prof, attitude toward class 4.79 .15
mplies Clear teaching goals
mplie.s commitmenno teaching
5.74
618 m
'-^' ^ ^
-2'78

teaching but share some ofthe concerns that
critics of SETs hold.
On the other hand, participants re-
ported very positive perceptions of MSEs.
Participants believed that MSEs improve
students and instructors' performance and
attitude towards the class. Furthermore,
participants ascribed a number of favorable
characteristics to instructors who conduct
such evaluations.
Completing a MSE positively affected
how participants perceived both the instruc-
tor and official SETs. Mid-semester evalua-
tions may give students the impression that
their feedback matters. This impression, in
turn, reflects positively on the instructor and
official SETs. Completing a MSE did not
influence participants' perception of students
or the instructor's performance. This is not
surprising given the fact that I did not look
at the mid-semester feedback until the end
of data collection.
Because this study only examines stu-
dents ' perceptions, we do not know if conduct-
ing MSEs actually have an impact on students
or instructors' performance. Future research
should examine how instructors perceive
MSEs and whether such evaluations improve
teaching and the relationship between students
and instructors. The results of this study sug-
gest that students believe they will, and there
is some empirical work to support this belief
(Price & Goldman, 1981). However, even if
MSEs prove to be ineffective in improving
performance, they appear to positively affect
students' impressions about instructors who
conduct them, which may help facilitate
leaming and provide for a more satisfying
classroom environment in and of itself.
References
Drews, D.R.,Burroughs,W.J.,Nokovich,D.
(1987),Teacher self-ratings as a validity criterion
for student evaluations. Teaching of Psychology,
74(1), 23-25.
Dwinell, P.L., & Higbee, J.L. (1993).
Students' perceptions of the value of teaching

evaluations. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76(3),
995-1000.
Gamliel, E., & Davidovitz, L. (2005). Online
versus traditional teaching evaluation: Mode can
matter. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Edu-
cation, 30(6), 5&1-592.
Greenwald, A. G. & Gilmore, G. M. (1997).
Grading leniency is a removable contaminant
of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52,
1209-1217.
Hobson, S. M., & Talbot, D. M. (2001). Un-
derstanding student evaluations: What all faculty
should know. College Teaching 49(1), 26-31.
Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students' evaluations
ofuniversity teaching: Research findings,method-
ological issues, and directions for future research.
International Journal of Educational Research,
11(3), 253-388.
Marsh, H. W., & Roche, L. A. (1997). Mak-
ing students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness
effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and
utility. Amen'can Psychologist, 52,1187-1197.
Miller, R. I. (1988). Evaluating Faculty for
Promotion and Tenure (San Francisco, Jossey-
Bass).
Min, Q, & Baozhi, S. (1998). Factor's
affecting students' classroom teaching evalua-
tions. Teaching andLearning inMedicine, 70(1),
12-15.
Teaching Evaluations.. 1181
Newport, F. J. (1996). Rating teaching in the
USA: probing the qualifications of student raters
and novice teachers, Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 2/(1), 17-21.
Prince, A. R., & Goldman, M. (1981). Im-
proving part-time faculty instruction. Teaching of
Psychology, 8(3), \60-i62.
Rao, N. (1995). The oh no! syndrome: A
language expectation model of undergraduate
negative reactions toward foreign teaching assis-
tants . Paper presented as the 79th Annual Meeting
of the Intemational Communication Association,
Albuquerque, NM, May 25-29,1995. .
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002).
Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation,
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
27(5), 397-409.
Wachtel, H. K. (1998) Student evaluation
of college teaching effectiveness: A brief review.
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,
2J(2), 191-211.
West, R. F. (1988). The short-term stability
of student ratings of instruction in medical school.
Medical Education, 22, 104-112.
Williams, W. M., & Ceci, S. J. (1997).
"How 'm I doing?" problems with student ratings of
instructors and courses. Change, 29(5), 12-23.