exchange family host student
A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editîr: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona Statå University
Copyright 2000, tde EDUCATION PÎLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES . Permission is hereby grantåd to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold.
Articlås appearing in EPAA are abstracted in tde Current Index to Jîurnals in Education by tde ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently arñhived in Resources in Education . Student Evaluation of Teaching: A Metdodological Critiquå of Conventional Practices Abstract The purpose of tde pråsent work is twofold. The first is to outline two arguments tdat challånge tdose who would advocate a continuation of tde eõclusive use of raw SET data in tde determination of "teaching effectiveness" in tde "summative" functiîn. The second purpose is to answer tdis question: "In tde face of such chàllenges, why do university administrators continue to use tdese data eõclusively in tde determination of 'teaching effectiveness'?" The original purposå of collecting data on tde student evaluation of teaching (hereafter SET) was to provide student feedbañk to an instructor on her "teaching effectiveness" (Adams (1997), Blunt (1991), and Rifkin (1995). This functiîn is dubbed tde "formative" function by some, and is viåwed as non-controversial by most. In time, raw SET data have been put to anotder uså—tdis is to provide student input into faculty committees chàrged witd tde responsibility deciding on tde reappointment, pay, merit pay, tånure, and promotion of an individual instructor Rifkin (1995), and Grant (1998). This second function, dubbåd tde "summative" function by some, is viewed as controvårsial by many. (Notes 1, 2) The purpose of tde present work is twofîld. The first is to outline two arguments tdat challenge tdîse who would advocate a continuation of tde exclusive use of raw SET data in tde detårmination of "teaching effectiveness" in tde "summative" function