Communicating Student Evaluation of Teaching Results: Rating Interpretation Guides (RIGs)

In the past decade student evaluation of teaching has expanded within Australian universities, with the results of evaluations increasingly being used to make judgements about teaching quality, career advancement and the funding of teaching. An important component of any student evaluation of teaching system is, therefore, the communication of rating results in a manner that enables fair and meaningful interpretations and comparisons of results by the wide range of evaluation users. This paper describes the development in one Australian university of Rating Interpretation Guides (RIGs) which take into account the influence of different teaching contexts on ratings and encourage evaluation users to explore ratings in terms of a range of scores rather than focusing on a single mean score. RIGs represent an important innovation in the communication of evaluation results for both formative and summative evaluation purposes. They are designed to enable meaningful interpretations of ratings which in turn will encourage appropriate use of results.

[1]  Lawrence M. Aleamoni,et al.  Practical Decisions in Developing and Operating a Faculty Evaluation System. , 1990 .

[2]  Michael Theall,et al.  Student ratings of instruction : issues for improving practice , 1990 .

[3]  Kenneth A. Feldman,et al.  Class size and college students' evaluations of teachers and courses: A closer look , 1984 .

[4]  Kenneth A. Feldman,et al.  Course characteristics and college students' ratings of their teachers: What we know and what we don't , 1978 .

[5]  Tony Becher.  Academic Tribes And Territories , 1989 .

[6]  William E. Cashin.  Students do rate different academic fields differently , 1990 .

[7]  I. Moses.  Academic Staff Evaluation and Development: A University Case Study , 1988 .

[8]  Communicating student ratings to decision makers: Design for good practice , 1990 .

[9]  A. Biglan.  Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. , 1973 .

[10]  A. Biglan.  The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. , 1973 .

[11]  P. A. Cohen.  Student Ratings of Instruction and Student Achievement: A Meta-analysis of Multisection Validity Studies , 1981 .

[12]  Yoram Neumann,et al.  Determinants of Students' Instructional Evaluation: A Comparison of Four Levels of Academic Areas -A , 1985 .

[13]  G. E. Thompson.  Difficulties in interpreting course evaluations: Some Bayesian insights , 1988 .

[14]  P. Cranton,et al.  A New Look at the Effect of Course Characteristics on Student Ratings of Instruction , 1986 .