Characteristics of Mindless Teaching Evaluations and the Moderating Effects of Image Compatibility

Administrators use data from student evaluations of teachers (SETs) as input for making numerous decisions. However, many in the profession question the validity of SET information. This study examines the SET process from a cognitive perspective and investigates the relationship between student images of their teachers and characteristics of mindless SET completion. Questionnaire data from 127 students show significant correlations between SET scores and overall teacher evaluations, but only when images of the current and ideal teacher are not compatible. When images of the current and ideal teacher are compatible, correlations between SET and overall scores are not statistically significant.

[1]  Lee Roy Beach.  Decision Making in the Workplace , 1996 .

[2]  K. Feldman.  An afterword for “the association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies” , 1990 .

[3]  Kenneth J. Dunegan.  Framing, cognitive modes, and image theory: Toward an understanding of a glass half full. , 1993 .

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

[5]  S. Simmons.  Reflective faculty evaluation: Enhancing teaching and determining faculty effectiveness , 1996 .

[6]  L. McCallum.  A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the tenure decision , 1984 .

[7]  R. Fazio.  Multiple Processes by which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The Mode Model as an Integrative Framework , 1990 .

[8]  Kevin R. Murphy,et al.  Performance appraisal: An organizational perspective. , 1991 .

[9]  I. Young,et al.  Student Evaluation of Faculty: Effects of Purpose on Pattern , 1999 .

[10]  James A. Neal,et al.  A Selective Review of the Validity of Student Ratings of Teaching , 1982 .

[11]  Paul Trout,et al.  Flunking the Test: The Dismal Record of Student Evaluations. , 2000 .

[12]  W. McKeachie.  Student ratings: The validity of use. , 1997 .

[13]  Kenneth A. Feldman,et al.  The association between student ratings of specific instructional dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data from multisection validity studies , 1989 .

[14]  P. Abrami,et al.  Navigating student ratings of instruction. , 1997 .

[15]  C. O'Reilly.  The use of information in organizational decision making: A model and some propositions. , 1983 .

[16]  Terence R. Mitchell,et al.  The status quo tendency in decision making , 1990 .

[17]  A. Greenwald.  Validity concerns and usefulness of student ratings of instruction. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[18]  H. Klein,et al.  An Integrated Control Theory Model of Work Motivation , 1989 .

[19]  Jeanette N. Cleveland,et al.  Performance Measurement and Theory , 1983 .

[20]  Walter C. Borman,et al.  Personal constructs, performance schemata, and “folk theories” of subordinate effectiveness: Explorations in an army officer sample☆ , 1987 .

[21]  S. Basow.  Best and Worst Professors: Gender Patterns in Students' Choices , 2000 .

[22]  G. Latham,et al.  OUTCOME EXPECTANCIES OF PEOPLE WHO CONDUCT PERFORMANCE APPRAISALS , 1986 .

[23]  Steven L. Neuberg,et al.  A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation , 1990 .

[24]  L. Beach,et al.  “… Do i love thee? Let me count …” toward an understanding of intuitive and automatic decision making , 1990 .

[25]  J. March,et al.  Handbook of organizations , 1966 .

[26]  E. Langer,et al.  Premature cognitive commitment. , 1981, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[27]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Appraisal , 1987 .

[28]  Herbert W. Marsh,et al.  Effects of Grading Leniency and Low Workload on Students' Evaluations of Teaching: Popular Myth, Bias, Validity, or Innocent Bystanders? , 2000 .

[29]  H. Marsh,et al.  Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective: The critical issues of validity, bias, and utility. , 1997 .

[30]  D SPRING.  Practice makes imperfect? , 1950, The Australian journal of dentistry.

[31]  Allan M. Mohrman,et al.  Motivation and Performance Appraisal Behavior. , 1981 .

[32]  C. W. Anderson,et al.  Decision making in the employment interview , 1964 .

[33]  P. Abrami,et al.  Students' Evaluations of University Teaching: Research Findings, Methodological Issues, and Directions for Future Research , 1987 .

[34]  Ellen J. Langer,et al.  Mindful Learning , 2000, Deep Learning in a Disorienting World.

[35]  Ellen J. Langer,et al.  Minding Matters: The Consequences of Mindlessness–Mindfulness , 1989 .

[36]  P. Abrami,et al.  Validity of student ratings of instruction : what we know and what we do not , 1990 .

[37]  Robert G. Lord,et al.  Alternative Information-Processing Models and Their Implications for Theory, Research, and Practice , 1990 .

[38]  Robert E. Kaplan,et al.  360‐degree feedback PLUS: Boosting the power of co‐worker ratings for executives , 1993 .

[39]  A. Greenwald,et al.  Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. , 1997, The American psychologist.

[40]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. , 1991, Journal of personality and social psychology.