Premium
Student Perception of Achievement Influences Student Evaluation of Teaching
Author(s) -
Selsby Joshua,
Sterle Jodi
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
the faseb journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.709
H-Index - 277
eISSN - 1530-6860
pISSN - 0892-6638
DOI - 10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.541.37
Subject(s) - set (abstract data type) , promotion (chess) , test (biology) , mathematics education , significant difference , psychology , student achievement , scale (ratio) , value (mathematics) , perception , academic achievement , medical education , mathematics , medicine , statistics , computer science , geography , biology , paleontology , cartography , neuroscience , politics , political science , law , programming language
Student evaluation of teaching (SET) continues to be commonly used as the sole evaluation tool of teaching effectiveness during departmental evaluations and promotion and tenure packages. The validity of these measures, however, is unclear and alternative factors that influence SET continue to be identified. We tested the hypothesis that the difference between anticipated achievement at the beginning and end of a physiology course impacted SET. To test this hypothesis students were given a survey toward the end of the course that included standard SET questions and questions regarding perceived achievement. For all instances a grade of A was assigned a value of 1 through a value of 5 for an F; SET was evaluated on a scale of 1‐5 where 5 was the best. For statistical tests students giving SET scores of 1‐3 were combined into a single group due to the low number of students giving SET scores in each of those groups. At the beginning of the semester all groups were similar and anticipated earning a B (~2/5). Mid‐semester, the 1‐3 group anticipated earning 3.77±0.29/5.0, which was significantly worse than the 4 and 5 groups, which anticipated earning 2.92±0.13 and 2.58±0.11/5.0, respectively. At the end of the semester all groups were different from each other as students in the 1‐3, 4, and 5 groups anticipated earning 3.23±0.3, 2.35±0.09, and 1.95±0.0.8/5.0, respectively. When evaluating the difference between anticipated performance and perceived final performance the 1‐3 group (‐1.31±0.85) was significantly less than the 4 and 5 groups (‐0.27±0.11 and ‐0.17±0.08, respectively). In total, these data indicate that student perception of performance and perceived differences between expectations at the onset and conclusion of a course have a significant impact on SET. Supported by the Harman Endowment.