Students’ evaluations of teaching (SETs) have been used as a primary means of evaluating the teaching quality at postsecondary institutions for a number of years. The research in this area has been consistently expanding in an effort to validate its use and efficacy. To date, there has been little consensus regarding the validity of these evaluations, especially with regards to the possible impact of extraneous factors. Researchers have previously found evidence of a link between the self-serving bias and grade expectations. The present study used an experimental design to examine the validity of SETs in the context of the self-serving bias. According to the self-serving bias, individuals will be more likely to attribute success internally but attribute failure externally. Specifically, the present study examined whether there were differences in the presence of the self-serving bias in relation to self-reported narcissism and shyness. Students at a large university aged 17 - 46 (N = 563) were asked to write a short essay on euthanasia and were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, students were assigned a low grade; in the second condition, they were assigned a high grade. When they were given their essay grade back, students had an opportunity to rate their evaluator. Results indicated that students were more likely to externalize their essay grade when in the negative condition whereby they attributed their grade to reasons outside their control versus the positive condition, irrespective of their level of self-reported narcissism or shyness. These results suggest that the self-serving bias does exist within SETs and calls into question the validity of these evaluations. The findings from this study highlight the need for further research into the role that student characteristics play with regards to SETs.

There is an increasingly number of students taking online classes in lieu of or in addition to the traditional face-to-face format. With this trend, there are questions that naturally come to the surface. The biggest question being "is teaching in the online arena just as effective as the face-to-face arena?" This dissertation aims to pursue that line of questioning by analyzing students' perceptions of the teaching effectiveness for instructors who teach the same course in both an online and face-to-face format in the same semester. The data are analyzed through the lens of the social capital theory. Social capital has never been applied to the classroom before as its focus has traditionally been on community development. However, social capital theory addresses interpersonal relationships and their impact on knowledge sharing behavior. This theory identifies three dimensions, which appear to have a parallel track with the student evaluation components; each is analyzed against each other. These dimensions include structured, cognitive and relational and are compared to the components of the student evaluation tool, which includes organization and explanation of materials, learning environment and self-regulated learning.

The purpose of this study was to (a) develop an evaluation instrument capable of rating students' perceptions of the instructional quality of an online course and the instructor’s performance, and (b) validate the proposed instrument with a study conducted at a major public university. The instrument was based upon the Seven Principles of Good Practice for Undergraduate Education (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). The study examined four specific questions. 1. Is the underlying factor structure of the new instrument consistent with Chickering and Gamson's Seven Principles? 2. Is the factor structure of the new instrument invariant for male and female students? 3. Are the scores on the new instrument related students’ expected grades? 4. Are the scores on the new instrument related to the students' perceived course workload? The instrument was designed to measure students’ levels of satisfaction with their instruction, and also gathered information concerning the students’ sex, the expected grade in the course, and the students’ perceptions of the amount of work required by the course. A cluster sample consisting of an array of online courses across the disciplines yielded a total 297 students who responded to the online survey. The students for each course selected were asked to rate their instructors with the newly developed instrument. Question 1 was answered using exploratory factor analysis, and yielded a factor structure similar to the Seven Principles. Question 2 was answered by separately factor-analyzing the responses of male and female students and comparing the factor structures. The resulting factor structures for men and women were different. However, 14 items could be realigned under five factors that paralleled some of the Seven Principles. When the scores of only those 14 items were entered in two principal components factor analyses using only men and only women, respectively and restricting the factor structure to five factors, the factor structures were the same for men and women. A weak positive relationship between students’ expected grades and their scores on the instrument was found (Question 3). There was no relationship between students’ perceived workloads for the course and their scores on the instrument (Question 4).

No description available.

Fundamental engineering courses are important to the undergraduate engineering student experience but have been associated with challenging educational environments. Several factors influence the educational environment, although learning experiences are primarily the outcome of interactions between instructors and students. To initiate change, it is important to understand teaching and learning experiences in fundamental engineering courses from the perspectives of the key players in these environments: instructors and students. To accomplish the goal of understanding teaching and learning experiences, I conducted studies that examined instructors' and students' perspectives on their experiences and the educational environments, using qualitative research methodology. Through these studies, this dissertation: 1) examined instructors' beliefs and self-described behaviors, guided by motivation theory and focusing on the role of instructors as socializers in the learning process; 2) considered interacting fundamental engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula to describe the educational environment in these courses from instructors' perspectives; and 3) examined student perceptions of their learning experiences and the educational environments in fundamental engineering courses using responses to open-ended items in end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Data indicate that participants strive to integrate strategies that promote effective learning despite challenges posed by course environments, although expected gains from these behaviors may not always be maximized. Students and instructors may benefit from a student-focused, collaborative and holistic course planning process that considers interacting fundamental courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula, and that engages instructors as equal partners in the planning process. Student feedback may be infused into the course planning process by productively and meaningfully utilizing students' responses to end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Overall, the results of this dissertation highlight the importance of institutional support, collaboration, and integrating student feedback in the quest for facilitating effective educational environments and positive learning experiences in engineering. / Doctor of Philosophy / Introductory engineering courses are important to engineering students’ college experience but have been associated challenging learning environments. Several factors influence the learning environment, although learning experiences are primarily the outcome of interactions between instructors and students. To initiate change, it is important to understand teaching and learning experiences in introductory engineering courses from the points of view of the key players in these environments: instructors and students. To accomplish the goal of understanding teaching and learning experiences, I conducted qualitative studies that examined instructors’ and students’ points of view on their experiences and the learning environments. Through these studies, this dissertation: 1) examined instructors’ beliefs and self-described behaviors, guided by motivation theory and focusing on the role of instructors as socializers in the learning process; 2) considered interacting introductory engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula to describe the learning environment in these courses from instructors’ points of view; and 3) examined student perceptions of their learning experiences and environments in introductory engineering courses using responses to open-ended items in end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Results show that participants strive to integrate strategies that promote effective learning despite challenges posed by learning environments, although the expected benefits from these strategies may not always be realized. Students and instructors may benefit from a student-focused, collaborative and holistic course planning process that considers interacting introductory engineering courses as a foundational curriculum within engineering curricula, and that involves v instructors as equal partners in the planning process. Student feedback may be included in the course planning process by productively and meaningfully using students’ responses to end-of-semester student evaluations of teaching surveys. Overall, the results of this dissertation highlight the importance of institutional support, collaboration, and integrating student feedback in the quest for facilitating effective learning environments and positive learning experiences in engineering.

Lecture-based (lB) and Problem-Based learning (PBl) methods of teaching Quantity Food Production and Service were compared. After a pilot study to refine the problems and test the methods of data collection, two sections of the course were taught using the different instructional methods. The classes were compared on knowledge prior to taking either course, grade point average (GPA), attendance, final exam scores, Instructional Development and Effectiveness Assessment (IDEA) student evaluation instrument, and Propensity for Participative Management (PPM) instrument. The PPM instrument was validated with a group of management dietitians (n = 235) and restaurateurs(n = 104). Students in lB had higher GPAs than students in the PBl section. Students in the PBl section attended more classes than did the lB section. There were no differences between the sections in their prior knowledge of nutrition and food principles (pre-test). There were no differences between the classes in the scores on the final exam. Using linear regression, the only differences which could be found among the students in either the pre-test or final exam were based on the student's grade point average (GPA), not method of teaching. There were significant differences in the students’ perceptions of the class as measured by the IDEA instrument. LB students indicated a significantly higher rating for their gain in factual knowledge, for five variables relating to the instructor's communication of content and purpose about the course, and for the instructor's ability to introduce stimulating ideas about the subject. PBL students thought the course was more difficult than did LB students but they developed effective communication skills, were stimulated to higher intellectual effort, and thought that PBL was better for three parameters of involving students. There were no differences between the students in terms of their propensity to practice participative management in the future either before the class began or after the learning experience. There were differences between the students’ perception of participation in their organizations and the perceptions of dietitians and restaurateurs. Students were less likely to trust their subordinates/peers, were less likely to believe that participative management promoted positive relationships in the organization, and had less intention to practice participative management in the future than did the NRA/ADA professionals. Problem-Based Learning was demonstrated to provide an equivalent mastery of subject matter as a traditional method of teaching. PBL students were more involved in their learning, were stimulated to higher intellectual achievement, and improved their communication skills to a greater extent than LB students. There appeared to be no difference in likelihood to become a participative manager as a result of either teaching method. / Ph. D.

This study used simulated results to evaluate four alternative methods of computing confidence intervals for class means in the context of student evaluations of teaching in a university setting. Because of the skewed and bounded nature of the ratings, the goal was to identify a procedure for constructing confidence intervals that would be asymmetric and not dependent upon normal curve theory. The four methods included (a) a logit transformation, (b) a resampling procedure, (c) a nonparametric, bias corrected accelerated Bootstrapping procedure, and (d) a Bayesian bootstrap procedure. The methods were compared against four criteria including (a) coverage probability, (b) coverage error, (c) average interval width, and (d) the lower and upper error probability. The results of each method were also compared with a classical procedure for computing the confidence interval based on normal curve theory. In addition, Student evaluations of teaching effectiveness (SET) ratings from all courses taught during one semester at Brigham Young University were analyzed using multilevel generalizability theory to estimate variance components and to estimate the reliability of the class means as a function of the number of respondents in each class. The results showed that the logit transformation procedure outperformed the alternative methods. The results also showed that the reliability of the class means exceeded .80 for classes averaging 15 respondents or more. The study demonstrates the need to routinely report a margin of error associated with the mean SET rating for each class and recommends that a confidence interval based on the logit transformation procedure be used for this purpose.

No description available.

No description available.