When to conduct student evaluation of teaching surveys: before or after the final examination?

被引:2
作者
Vehovar, Vasja [1 ]
Strlekar, Luka [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ljubljana, Ctr Social Informat, Fac Social Sci, Ljubljana, Slovenia
关键词
Student evaluation of teaching; administration; timing; cross-classified multilevel models; RATINGS; VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1080/02602938.2023.2298771
中图分类号
G40 [教育学];
学科分类号
040101 ; 120403 ;
摘要
Student evaluation of teaching (SET) involves numerous conceptual and methodological problems. This paper focuses on a specific methodological dilemma: whether to conduct SET surveys before or after the final examination. This decision is a critical administrative and practical issue that can affect the level and quality of SET results. To address this problem, a systematic literature search was initially performed. However, it found only 17 studies and inconclusive results. In the empirical component, a replication survey (n = 5,077) was conducted. It posed seven course-related questions to the same students before and after their final examination. A slightly higher but statistically significant (p < 0.001) average score was obtained in the after-examination survey (a 0.06 difference on a 1-5 scale). This increase was partly attributed to a positive examination experience. The overall test-retest correlation (r = 0.61) indicated relatively low reliability, suggesting that the before-examination survey better reflected students' attitudes. The data quality was also higher in the before-examination survey, although the before-examination survey could not properly assess the examination-related aspects of the course. From a methodological perspective, the most comprehensive insight seems to be derived from conducting SET surveys before the examination and following up with a brief after-examination survey.
引用
收藏
页码:767 / 780
页数:14
相关论文
共 55 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2022, SHANGHAIRANKINGS ACA
  • [2] Arnold I.J. M., 2009, International Journal of Educational Research, V48, P215, DOI [10.1016/j.ijer.2009.10.001, DOI 10.1016/J.IJER.2009.10.001]
  • [3] Bailey M., 2018, TIMING STUDENT EVALU
  • [4] Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
    Bates, Douglas
    Maechler, Martin
    Bolker, Benjamin M.
    Walker, Steven C.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF STATISTICAL SOFTWARE, 2015, 67 (01): : 1 - 48
  • [5] Benton SL, 2014, HIGHER EDUC, V29, P279, DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8005-6_7
  • [6] Can professors buy better evaluation with lenient grading? The effect of grade inflation on student evaluation of teaching
    Berezvai, Zombor
    Lukats, Gergely Daniel
    Molontay, Roland
    [J]. ASSESSMENT & EVALUATION IN HIGHER EDUCATION, 2021, 46 (05) : 793 - 808
  • [7] Berk R. A., 2013, TOP 10 FLASHPOINTS S
  • [8] Bharadwaj S., 1993, MARKETING ED REV, V3, P16, DOI [DOI 10.1080/10528008.1993.11488406, 10.1080/10528008.1993]
  • [9] Boring A., 2016, SCIENCEOPEN RES, DOI [10.14293/s2199-1006.1.sor-edu.aetbzc.v1, DOI 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.V1, 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-EDU.AETBZC.v1]
  • [10] Taking the grading leniency story to the edge. The influence of student, teacher, and course characteristics on student evaluations of teaching in higher education
    Brockx, Bert
    Spooren, Pieter
    Mortelmans, Dimitri
    [J]. EDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT EVALUATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY, 2011, 23 (04) : 289 - 306