Not only does your input help improve Stanford courses in the future, but your course evaluations can also assist your peers in making good decisions when they are selecting courses. Your quarterly course evaluations represent both your right to have your voice heard and your responsibility to the university and your peers. Return to the Advising Student Handbook. Stanford University link is external. Why should I fill out my course evaluations? Ramsden, P. Learning to teach in higher education.
London: RoutledgeFalmer. Richardson, J. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Roche, L. Teaching self-concept in higher education. In Teacher thinking, beliefs and knowledge in higher education pp.
Dordrecht: Springer. Ryan, M. Framing student evaluations of university learning and teaching: discursive strategies and textual outcomes. Ryan, K. California: Sage Publications. The coding manual for qualitative researchers 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Sage. Smidt, H. European quality assurance—a European higher education area success story [overview paper].
Curaj, L. Matei, R. Pricopie, J. Scott Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Spencer, K. Student perspectives on teaching and its evaluation.
Spooren, P. On the validity of student evaluation of teaching. Review of Educational Research, 83 4 , — Stein, S. Retrieved from. Tertiary teachers and student evaluations: never the twain shall meet?
Stensaker, B. Assessing the organisational impact of external quality assurance: hypothesising key dimensions and mechanisms. Quality in Higher Education, 21 3 , — Steyn, C. Eliciting student feedback for course development: the application of a qualitative course evaluation tool among business research students. Uttl, B. PeerJ, 5 5 , e Meta-analysis of faculty's teaching effectiveness: student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related.
Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54 , 22— Williams, J. Quality assurance and quality enhancement: is there a relationship? Quality in Higher Education, 22 2 , 97— Download references. The authors are grateful to Dr. A kind thank you to The Centre for Health Education Scholarship, University of British Columbia, Canada, who provided location, hospitality and a wonderful learning environment for the first author during the early writing of the paper.
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar. Correspondence to Iris Borch. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material.
If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. Reprints and Permissions. Borch, I. Educ Asse Eval Acc 32, 83— Download citation. Received : 30 June Accepted : 08 January Published : 17 January Issue Date : February Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:.
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article. Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative.
Skip to main content. Search SpringerLink Search. Download PDF. Abstract Student evaluation of teaching is a multipurpose tool that aims to improve and assure educational quality. Introduction In the last two decades, the use of evaluation has been proliferated in European higher education concurrent with an increase in educational evaluations and auditing by quality assurance agencies European University Association ; Hansen ; Stensaker and Leiber Querying data from The Arctic University of Norway UiT , wherein both quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods appear, we will explore the experiences and perceptions of student evaluation among students and academics with the following research question: How do different evaluation methods, such as survey and dialogue-based evaluation, invite students to provide feedback about aspects relevant to their learning processes?
Design and methods Institutional context This study was conducted at The Faculty of Health Sciences, at UiT, a Norwegian university with 16, students, employees and eight faculties. Norwegian legal act The act relating to universities and university colleges requires each university to have an internal quality assurance system in which student evaluation is integrated. Methods Eight health profession education programmes were included in this research. Analysis Interview data were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Results Both students and academics stated that evaluation practices varied greatly, even within the same programme. Written evaluation surveys Document analysis of the written surveys at the institution showed that the number of questions varied from 5 to How was the outcome of the teaching in the course? How would you rate the learning outcome in group learning activities? How would you rate the learning outcome in the lectures?
To which degree did the teacher spark your interest for the course topic? When asked to give examples of pre-defined questions they considered unsuitable for course improvement, one informant answered: Yes, they ask how satisfied you are with the teaching, kind of a general and overall question, how do you answer that?
Discussion Student evaluation was originally introduced in education as a pedagogical tool to provide a valuable impetus for improving teaching practices. Dialogue-based vs. Students expectations The students were eager to share their opinions about how they believed teaching and courses could be improved in order to enhance their learning, which they regarded as the purpose and intended use of evaluation. Evaluation questions and their fitness for the intended purpose Document analysis of templates and surveys showed that many of the questions in written evaluations asked students about their satisfaction level, and not of how aspects about the course and teaching affected their learning processes.
Concluding remarks The stakeholders and intended users of evaluations interviewed in this study students and academics expressed that the types of questions were different in the two evaluation methods. References Arthur, L. Article Google Scholar Ballantyne, R. Article Google Scholar Bedggood, R.
Article Google Scholar Beran, T. Google Scholar Bergsmann, E. Article Google Scholar Boring, A. Article Google Scholar Bovill, C. Google Scholar Cathcart, A. Article Google Scholar Chen, Y. Article Google Scholar Christie, C. Article Google Scholar Cousins, J. Chapter Google Scholar Cousins, J. Article Google Scholar Darwin, S.
Book Google Scholar Darwin, S. Article Google Scholar Desimone, L. Article Google Scholar Dolmans, D. Google Scholar Douglas, J. Article Google Scholar Erikson, M. Accessed 7 September Faddar, J. Article Google Scholar Fan, Y. Article Google Scholar Forss, K. Article Google Scholar Freeman, R. Article Google Scholar Golding, C. Article Google Scholar Grebennikov, L. Article Google Scholar Haji, F. Article Google Scholar Hansen, H.
Article Google Scholar Harvey, L. Article Google Scholar Havnes, A. Article Google Scholar Hendry, G. Article Google Scholar Huxham, M. Article Google Scholar Johnson, K. Article Google Scholar Kember, D. Article Google Scholar Liaw, S.
Article Google Scholar Lovdata Accessed 24 June Lovdata Accessed 28 April Marsh, H. Article Google Scholar Meld. Accessed 10 October Meld. Accessed 10 November Michelsen, S. Accessed 7 September Nasser, F. Article Google Scholar Neumann, R. Article Google Scholar Newton, J. Article Google Scholar Niessen, T. Article Google Scholar Patrick, C.
Article Google Scholar Patton, M. Google Scholar Patton, M. Google Scholar Penny, A. Article Google Scholar Piccinin, S. Article Google Scholar Raban, C. Article Google Scholar Ramsden, P. Book Google Scholar Richardson, J. Article Google Scholar Roche, L. Article Google Scholar Ryan, K.
Google Scholar Smidt, H. Chapter Google Scholar Spencer, K. Article Google Scholar Spooren, P. Article Google Scholar Stein, S. Article Google Scholar Stensaker, B.
Teaching of Psychology 20 4 , Gloria Ladson-Billings, Theory into Practice 35 2 , Karen Lewis, New Directions for Teaching and Learning 87, Osgathorpe, To Improve the Academy 29, This website is best viewed in a modern browser with Javascript enabled.
While it should still be accessible to older browsers or non-javascript enabled browsers, some functionality may be limited. There are no additional resources available for this article. Provide Feedback. Sign in with NetID. Submit A Quick Ticket.
0コメント