Student Evaluation of Teachers

Teachers in training are often evaluated by the students they are instructing, and whether or not it is considered an effective practice. Different viewpoints exist about the validity of having students evaluate student teachers and whether student ratings should be used, as well as the role the supervising teacher plays in the student evaluation process. Student evaluation of instruction has been used since the 1920s when it was first used in the nation's colleges and universities. Even after all these years, “student evaluation of teacher performance is considered one of the most controversial techniques used to try to identify teacher effectiveness” (Coburn, 1984, ¶ 1).

Keywords Correlation; Formative Evaluation; Reliability; Summative Evaluation; Validity

Overview

Student evaluation of instruction has been used since the 1920s when it was first used in the nation's colleges and universities (D'Apolloina & Abrami, 1997, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003). Even after all these years, student evaluation of teacher performance is considered one of the most controversial techniques used to determine the effectiveness of teachers (Coburn, 1984).

Student evaluation of teachers is also known as student rating. The advantage of using students to evaluate their instructors is that “students are the main source of information about the learning environment” in which they are immersed (Coburn, 1984, ¶ 4.1). Students are also in the best position to provide information about their instructor's ability to motivate them to learn and report about the instructor's level of rapport as well as how effectively the teacher communicates with them. Students can also be good assessors of the value and adequacy of the course content, their teacher's way of instructing, their textbooks, the homework they are given, and their own general interest in learning course content. Some also contend that the use of student evaluations of their teachers can help facilitate an easy exchange of information between students and their teacher. This, in turn, may prompt additional student participation in the teaching-learning process and a higher level of instruction. Student evaluations of their instructors may also motivate instructors and teacher evaluators in such a way that would promote the effective teaching, making it more recognized and rewarded (Aleamoni, 1981, as cited in Coburn, 1984).

There are many reasons for evaluating student teachers in a kindergarten through twelfth grade setting. Most teacher education programs state what criteria student teachers will need to enter the teaching profession, and evaluations can inform them about what skills they still need to work on and what skills they have mastered (Barrett, 1986). Student teacher evaluation can also be used for program improvement (Ashburn & Fisher, 1984, as cited in Barrett, 1986). For example, a teacher education program requires that student teachers demonstrate the ability to plan instructional units. If student teacher evaluations show that most student teachers are not doing this effectively or correctly, then the school can adjust its program accordingly and use future evaluations as a gauge of whether or not they have improved their instructional practices (Barrett, 1986).

While there may be many good reasons to consider using students to evaluate teachers, instructors may be concerned about the use of such student ratings. They may feel that “students lack the maturity and expertise to make judgments about course content, instructor style, and instructor effectiveness” (Coburn, 1984, ¶ 9.1). There may also be cause for concern that students' ratings are more a measure of the instructor's popularity rather than their ability to teach. In addition, many rating forms have been determined to be both unreliable and invalid, and there is always the danger that an inappropriate evaluation form will be selected as the rating instrument. There have also been other variables that have nothing to do with instructors or their effectiveness and ability to teach that have been shown to affect student ratings of their instructor. These variables include the grades students have received in class from the instructor and the size of the class (Coburn, 1984).

Student & Teacher Agreement on Evaluating Student Teachers

For many years, there have been surveys designed to allow students to assess different aspects of student teachers' instructional abilities (Journal of Teacher Education, 1964; Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969; Meighan, 1974; Veldman & Peck, 1963, as cited in Perl, 1978). As the use of student evaluation of teacher instruction becomes more popular, it is important to try to determine how dependable the responses of students are when they evaluate a student teacher. Some believe that student responses may be dependable (Perl, 1978). Evans (1951, as cited in Perl, 1978) believed that using students as observers of teachers is a good thing because students have an advantage in that they see their teacher regularly over a long period of time and know more than an outside evaluator. The same thing could be true of students' observations of their student teachers because students should have the best opportunity to see what student teachers can and cannot do, as well as how the student teacher reacts in different types of situations (Perl, 1978).

A study was designed to determine whether there are qualities or practices of student teachers that can be dependably judged by the students they teach (Perl, 1978). To ascertain whether or not this is true, high school students' ratings of their student teachers were compared to the ratings of supervising teachers. Supervising teachers were selected to be the comparison group because, like the students, they see the student teachers regularly over a long period of time. The studies indicated that students' evaluation of student teachers seemed to correlate with supervising teachers only on certain factors. One possible reason for this is that students and supervising teachers view student teachers from different perspectives.

An example of this would be if supervising teachers were asked how well student teachers develop lesson plans. Supervising teachers may not rate the student teachers very high because they see the planning process the student teachers go through and find it inadequate or lacking. If the students of the student teachers were asked the same question, their response may be much more positive because all they see is what goes on in the classroom, and to them, the student teacher seems to have their lessons well organized and prepared. The students and the supervising teachers could both be correct in their assessment of the student teacher's ability to develop lesson plans, but they are really answering different questions (Perl, 1978).

There is evidence available that suggests there is significant correlation between students and supervising teachers in their evaluation of student teachers' control of the classroom, their personality in relating to their students, and the assistance they give students to help them understand what is learned. Students and supervising teachers do not seem to agree, however, on their evaluation of the variety of learning activities student teachers use (Perl, 1978). This leads to the conclusion that there are some cases in which students can provide dependable information about the characteristics of their student teachers (Veldman & Peck, 1963; Meighan, 1974, as cited in Perl, 1978) and other cases when they cannot.

Evaluation Form Validity

There can be concern about “the validity of student ratings. Student ratings become invalid if the rating form used is not the correct form to collect the specific data required. Rating forms vary widely” (Scriven, 1995, ¶ 6). They can be created by the students, the cooperating teacher, the student's advisor, the program, or even by the student teacher. Thus, it is difficult to say that student ratings can be a good indicator of learning gains or the student teacher's performance, because not all forms are the same, and one cannot assume that there is any commonality to all student teacher ratings (Scriven, 1995).

Another potential issue “with using rating forms for summative teacher evaluations is that a lot of them ask the wrong overall questions” (Scriven, 1995, ¶ 3). Some examples of the common types of subjective, and therefore incorrect, questions that are asked on teacher evaluation forms:

• Questions that ask students to compare the teacher with other teachers they have,

• Questions that ask if the student would recommend the course to their friends who have similar interests, and

• Questions that ask if the student thinks it is one of the best courses they have ever had (Scriven, 1995).

There are also other form design considerations that should be taken into account when looking at student evaluations of their teachers. Some of the practical considerations include the length of the evaluation form and the type of questions asked. If the evaluation form is too long, students may not fill it in; they may skip over some of the questions, or they may not give the questions enough consideration before answering them. Evaluation forms should not include questions that may lead students to think that “they will be used to discriminate against them in any way or that they could feel biased towards favorable comments or unfavorable comments” (Scriven, 1995, ¶ 10).

The accuracy of student rating forms can also be compromised by the circumstances of how and when students are asked to complete them. Student rating results may be valid if they come from rating forms that are administered in the correct way, if the method of data collection has been properly controlled, and if there has been a thorough analysis of the evaluation results. Some of the factors that work against the validity of evaluation results are:

• When the teacher is used to collect the forms that rate their own instruction and instructional methods,

• When there is no one in the room to make sure the instructor does not ask for any sympathy or indulgence or favors before the evaluation forms are handed out to students to complete,

• When students are not given enough time to complete the evaluation forms, and

• When there is no one available to make sure that there is an acceptable return rate of the evaluation forms.

There can also be errors in the processing of the data, the report design, and the assessment of the evaluation results, which can affect the validity of the student evaluations. Some of these errors include:

• Using the averages alone without looking at the distribution of the answers,

• Failing to develop appropriate comparison groups so that the typical tendency of ratings can be taken into account,

• Looking at the small differences and viewing them as significant when they are not, and

• Using the ratings as the only basis for either formative or summative evaluation (Scriven, 1995, ¶ 14).

Evaluation “forms can be adopted from other institutions or constructed by students, faculty, administrators, or by committees. However, experts in questionnaire design should be involved in the development of student rating forms to avoid producing a finished questionnaire that reflects bias toward any aspect of instructional effectiveness” or one that lacks validity and reliability (Coburn, 1984, ¶ 16).

Applications

Supervising Teacher Evaluations

One survey of colleges and universities found that teacher education programs used rating scales, daily logs, anecdotal records, behavioral coding, and self-assessment as tools for evaluating student teachers (Fant et al., 1985, as cited in Barrett, 1986). Research also indicates that student teaching grades are usually high regardless of which evaluation tools are used. This could be due to effective instruction before the actual student teaching experience (Defino, 1983, as cited in Barrett, 1986), or because many unsuited or marginal students leave the program before it is time to student teach. High grades could also be because supervising teachers are evaluating student teachers on their potential instead of their actual skills (Barrett, 1986), or that student teachers tend to take on the style and attitudes of their supervising teachers (McIntyre, 1984, as cited in Barrett, 1986). It is also a possibility that supervising teachers tend to rate their student teachers high because they serve as both an evaluator and mentor/coach to the student teacher and, therefore, can find themselves judging themselves or their ability to guide the student (Ashburn & Fisher, 1984, as cited in Barrett, 1986).

Factors Affecting Student Evaluation of Teachers

Student evaluations have been studied by many people (Basow, 2000; Basow & Howe, 1987; Elmore & LaPointe, 1974; Harris, 1975; Henebry & Diamond, 1998; Hobson & Talbot, 2001; Kierstead, D'Angostino & Dill, 1988; McKeachie & Lin, 1971; Swim et al., 1989; Tatro, 1995; Tieman & Rankin-Ullock, 1985; Wachtel, 1998, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003), who have identified several factors that can possibly affect a teacher's evaluation. These factors include:

• The time of day the class is held (Koushki & Kuhn, 1982, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003),

• What the student's grade point average is (Langbein, 1994; Sidanius & Crane, 1989, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003),

• The difficulty of the class being taught (Marsh, 1987, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003),

• The size of the class (Greenwald & Gilmore, 1997, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003), and

• Students' interest in the subject matter being taught before taking the class (Marsh & Cooper, 1981; Marsh & Dunkin, 1992, as cited in Baldwin & Blattner, 2003).

Others have “identified gender and gender-related issues as other areas of potential bias in student evaluations of their teachers” (Baldwin & Blattner, 2003, p. 28).

Even though there are “some studies that show that student evaluations do offer reliable and valid means of assessment of the quality of teaching” (Pike, 1999; Marsh & Roche, 2000; Griffin & Pool, 1998, as cited in Barnes et al., 2001, ¶ 2), there are other studies that show that student evaluations of teachers can be both positively and negatively influenced by components that are unrelated to the quality of instruction (Peters, 1994; Simpson, 1995; Buck, 1998; Wilson, 1998; Sheehan & DuPrey, 1999, as cited in Barnes et al., 2001). With such conflicting information, student teaching evaluations need to be carefully looked at in order to determine student perceptions and expectations (Barnes et al., 2001). Student evaluation forms need to be examined to make sure they are assessing what they are intended to, the questions are clear, and there is no ambiguity.

A Matter of Interpretation

Another consideration to look at when using student evaluations to rate teacher performance is the meaning behind the evaluations. Student teaching evaluations tend to use changing language when expressing students' opinions about student teachers and the quality of their teaching methods. In one study, students were asked to give their interpretation of exactly how many times an act needed to occur if it is said to happen "frequently." They were also asked to give their interpretation of exactly how many times an act needed to occur if it occurs "generally." The researchers found that there was abundant variability in the students' understanding of the concepts, and some of the variability in their answers was associated with a student's gender (Barnes, Levi & Cerrito, 2001). This particular survey shows that when using multiple-choice answers, such as "very little, a little, somewhat, a lot, a great deal;" "occasionally, adequately, and consistently;" and "rarely, sometimes, usually, and always," that those reviewing the evaluations should keep in mind that these answers reflect each student's personal interpretation of what these concepts mean.

One study looked at the validity of having elementary school students rate the performance of their student teachers. The ratings of the student teachers' college supervisors and their supervising teachers were used as the criteria to contrast the validity the elementary students' ratings (Payne, 1984). The results of the study indicated that elementary school student ratings were much lower than both the college supervisor and the supervising instructor ratings on four of the nine teacher competencies, but the ratings of the college supervisors and the supervising instructors did correlate for the most part. These results would suggest that the elementary school students are not capable of adequately evaluating student teacher performance for most competencies that are evaluated (Payne, 1984).

Viewpoints

Benefits of Student Evaluation of Teachers

It is not uncommon for students in higher education to rate the effectiveness of the instruction they receive (Aleamoni, 1981, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990), and there has been over 50 years of research conducted on the subject to validate the use of student evaluations in higher education (Bridges & Groves, 1990). The research supports the belief that student ratings are very stable (Aleamoni, 1981, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990), that student evaluations are strongly related to student achievement (Cohen, 1981, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990), and that student evaluations can be very effective in promoting instructor improvement in the classroom (Cohen, 1981, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990). Informal evaluations became common practice in social media with the advent of websites such as RateMyProfessors.com (Hartman, 2013).

The research shows that using student ratings is appropriate at the college level, but there has not been much research on the reliability and validity of student ratings of instruction at the elementary and secondary school levels. Some of the research shows student ratings to be reliable (Fox et al., 1983; Bryan, 1963; Remers, 1939; Stalnecker & Remers, 1929, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990). It has shown that student evaluation of teacher behavior is highly related to assessments made by trained observers (Fox et al., 1983, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990). Student ratings can also be effective in bringing about changes in instructor behavior and improvement in instructional practices (Bryan 1963; Gage et al., 1960; Tuckman & Oliver, 1968, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990). Other studies show that student ratings are reasonably accurate indicators of how much they have learned from their teachers (Eash et al., 1980;Anderson, 1954; Lins, 1946, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990).

Some Instructors Disagree

However, when instructors are asked about the value of student evaluations, they tend to have three different positions on the matter-in favor of using them, are skeptical about using them, and are opposed to using them-in almost equal numbers (Kauchak et al., 1985, as cited in Bridges & Groves, 1990). Instructors who are in favor of student evaluations are careful to limit the topics that students evaluate to what they like about the teacher and the class but do not believe students are in a position to evaluate instructional competence. Instructors who are skeptical about the value of using student evaluations tend to feel that students do not have the ability to tell the difference between a good teacher and a popular teacher. Instructors who are opposed to using student evaluations in the classroom are likely to focus on students' inability to comprehend the complexities of the teaching profession and the influence their emotions may have on the evaluation results. Generally speaking, high school teachers are more accepting of using student evaluations than elementary teachers are (Bridges & Groves, 1990).

Conclusion

Student evaluation of student teachers can be a valuable point of data for the assessment of the student's teaching in certain circumstances, but they should never be the only source of evaluation. Student ratings need to be investigated cautiously in order to provide any useful and accurate data. When used properly, students and the student teachers being evaluated can derive some benefit from the use of student evaluations of them and their instruction (Scriven, 1995). There are certain student teacher competencies that students can dependably evaluate. It can be helpful for student teachers to know how their students perceive them, and it can also reinforce their supervising teacher's evaluation in many cases. However, students should not use the same form that a student teacher's supervising teacher uses because they are not able to properly evaluate all functions of student teaching that should be evaluated.

Terms & Concepts

Correlation: Correlation is a statistical relationship between two or more variables; so that if there is a systematic change in the value of one, there is also a systematic change in the other.

Formative Evaluation: Formative evaluations are intended to provide information needed to help teachers adjust their instruction while instruction is occurring.

Reliability: Reliability is the extent to which an evaluation consistently measures what it is supposed to evaluate.

Summative Evaluation: Summative evaluations are intended to occur after instruction has been completed at the end of some predetermined point in time or instructional component.

Validity: Validity refers to whether the evaluation is truly evaluating what it is supposed to evaluate.

Bibliography

Baldwin, T. & Blattner, N. (2003). Guarding against potential bias in student evaluations. College Teaching, 51 , 27. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9948078&site=ehost-live

Barnes, G., Levi, I. & Cerrito, P. (2001). Student interpretation of language in student teaching evaluations. College Student Journal, 35 , 373. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6816225&site=ehost-live

Barrett. J. (1986). Evaluation of student teachers. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5fstorage%5f01/0000019b/80/34/97/25.pdf

Bridges, E. & Groves, B. (1990). Managing the incompetent teacher. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from University of Oregon https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/dspace/bitstream/1794/3275/1/managing‗the‗incompetent.pdf

Cronin, L. & Capie, W. (1986). The influence of daily variation in teacher performance on the reliability and validity of assessment data. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5fstorage%5f01/0000019b/80/2f/79/db.pdf

Coburn, L. (1984). Student evaluation of teacher performance. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5fstorage%5f01/0000019b/80/1c/40/b9.pdf

Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning & Instruction, 291-9. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=91739020&site=ehost-live

Ferguson, R. F. (2012). Can student surveys measure teaching quality?. Phi Delta Kappan, 94, 24-28. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83344264&site=ehost-live

Hartman, K. B., & Hunt, J. B. (2013). What Ratemyprofessors.com reveals about how and why students evaluate their professors: A glimpse into the student mind-set. Marketing Education Review, 23, 151-162. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=89565439&site=ehost-live

Payne, B. (1984). Interrelationships among college supervisor, supervising teacher, and elementary pupil ratings of student teaching performance. Educational and Psychological Measurement 44 , p. 1037-1043.

Perl, M. (1978). Pupil and teacher agreement on their assessment of student teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 71 , 243. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=5006837&site=ehost-live

Scriven, M. (1995). Student ratings offer useful input to teacher evaluations. Retrieved December 14, 2007 from Education Resources Information Center http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content%5fstorage%5f01/0000019b/80/14/a5/8a.pdf

Suggested Reading

Millman, J. (1997). Grading Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement a Valid Evaluation Measure? Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Royai, A., Ponton, M., Derrick, M. & Davis, J. (2006). Student Evaluation of Teaching in the Virtual and Traditional Classrooms: A Comparative Analysis. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Schwebel, S. & Schwebel, D. (2001). The Student Teacher's Handbook. Florence, KY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.