Abstract
Evaluating the teaching performance of lecturers in higher education is important for both the Universities and the faculty themselves. Having information about teaching performance is essential to bring about change in student learning and assessment, to incentivize lecturers, to appraise lecturers and to make important administrative decisions. The most common approach to evaluate lecturers is student evaluation of teaching (SET). However, SET is commonly considered to be only a poor reflection of lecturer teaching performance. Here I propose a number of measures to improve SET. I recommend to change the current cardinal grading of lecturers to an ordinal system, in which student rank their best lecturers based on specific criteria. These criteria should be concrete, aligned with the desired attributes of a good lecturer and process-oriented rather than achievement-oriented. To increase student motivation to provide accurate feedback, SET should be directly linked to teaching awards and publicized transparently. Finally, to obtain meaningful formative feedback, lecturers should administer their own feedback surveys, tailored to the specific pedagogical approaches and learning outcomes of their modules. It is hoped that with these measures a more meaningful student evaluation of teaching can be achieved.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Billington, H. L. (1997). Poster presentations and peer assessment: novel forms of evaluation and assessment. The Journal of Biological Education, 31, 218–220.
Deslauriers, L., McCarty, L. S., Miller, K., Callaghan, K., & Kestin, G. (2019). Measuring actual learning versus feeling of learning in response to being actively engaged in the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 116, 19251–19257.
Dunegan, K. J., & Hrivnak, M. W. (2003). Characteristics of mindless teaching evaluations and the moderating effects of image compatibility. Journal of Management Education, 27, 280–303.
McKinney, E., & Niese, B. (2017). Effective Student Crowdpolling: Key Decisions and a Learning Case. Proceedings of the 23rd Americas Conference on Information Systems, Boston, MA (pp. 1–7).
Shah, N. B., Bradley, J. K., Parekh, A., Wainwright, M., & Ramchandran, K. (2013). A Case for Ordinal Peer-evaluation in MOOCs. NIPS Workshop on Data Driven Education (pp. 1–10).
Spencer, K. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (2002). Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 397–409.
Spooren, P., Brockx, B., & Mortelmans, D. (2013). On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching: The State of the Art. Review of Educational Research, 83, 598–642.
Tiberius, R. G., Sackin, H. D., & Cappe, L. (1987). A comparison of two methods for evaluating teaching. Studies in Higher Education, 12, 287–297.
Funding
No specific funding was obtained for this work.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest or competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hagen, T. Towards a More Meaningful Evaluation of University Lecturers. NZ J Educ Stud 55, 379–386 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00180-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-020-00180-2