“Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)
Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) have been the most consistently administered tool, and they are still extensively used in higher education institutions to assess teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to explore how SET are used by administrators in the teaching evaluation proce...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Canadian journal of higher education (1975) 2019-04, Vol.49 (1), p.85-103 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 103 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 85 |
| container_title | Canadian journal of higher education (1975) |
| container_volume | 49 |
| creator | Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco Nocente, Norma Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca Forgie, Sarah |
| description | Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) have been the most consistently administered tool, and they are still extensively used in higher education institutions to assess teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to explore how SET are used by administrators in the teaching evaluation process at a large, research-intensive Canadian university. A basic qualitative research design was used in this project, and semi-structured interviews were used to obtain administrators' experiences. The research question that guided this study was: How are SET (and other tools) used in the evaluation of teaching at this university? Findings showed that although participants mostly utilized a couple of SET statements as indicators of effective teaching, they were certainly aware of the intrinsic issues concerning these tools, and that they are continually seeking to obtain more evidence if SET results are below their benchmarks. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.47678/cjhe.v49i1.188275 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_eric_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_eric_primary_EJ1214521</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A592557639</galeid><ericid>EJ1214521</ericid><sourcerecordid>A592557639</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3225-af9e2211c2e09ac0fa2cedd3f47e42dd3e179635be0e430a319b8244d76521593</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNptUc1uEzEQthBIhMILICFZcIHDBnvs_TG3qAoUVJVDwtlyvLOJo2Sd2k6k3vIYIMHL5UnqdFHFAc1hRvN98_sR8pqzsayruvlo1yscH6RyfMybBuryCRkBKFFUFYOnZMQErwoOvHlOXsS4ZowBY2pEDqfj75nf4sK3d3RlIk2eJjR2RdMK6en4cxG8tX7jTsdf1Pp9iHg6_vlEJ-3W9S6mYJIPkd6Yg1ua5PolnaV9i32i04PZ7HPK95H6js7PTc_4-9l0_uEledaZTcRXf_0F-fF5Or-8Kq6_f_l6ObkurAAoC9MpBODcAjJlLOsMWGxb0ckaJeQAea0qUS6QoRTMCK4WDUjZ1lUJvFTigrwZ-mJwVu-C25pwp6ff8idkZmT83YDvgr_dY0x6nW_s80oaABiXHCqZWW8H1tJsULu-8_lua3fuVpcKyrKuxHnU-D-kbC1unfU9di7nJ_8WwFBgg48xYPe4H2f6QVV9VlU_qKoHVcU9U2SYFg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2220141264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>“Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)</title><source>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</source><source>Education Source</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco ; Nocente, Norma ; Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca ; Forgie, Sarah</creator><creatorcontrib>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco ; Nocente, Norma ; Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca ; Forgie, Sarah</creatorcontrib><description>Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) have been the most consistently administered tool, and they are still extensively used in higher education institutions to assess teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to explore how SET are used by administrators in the teaching evaluation process at a large, research-intensive Canadian university. A basic qualitative research design was used in this project, and semi-structured interviews were used to obtain administrators' experiences. The research question that guided this study was: How are SET (and other tools) used in the evaluation of teaching at this university? Findings showed that although participants mostly utilized a couple of SET statements as indicators of effective teaching, they were certainly aware of the intrinsic issues concerning these tools, and that they are continually seeking to obtain more evidence if SET results are below their benchmarks.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0316-1218</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2293-6602</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.47678/cjhe.v49i1.188275</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Toronto: The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education</publisher><subject>Administrator Attitudes ; Benchmarking ; Bias ; College Faculty ; College Students ; Education parks ; Educational evaluation ; Educational Quality ; Evaluation Methods ; Feedback (Response) ; Foreign Countries ; Formative Evaluation ; Gender Differences ; Higher Education ; Instructional Effectiveness ; Interpersonal Attraction ; Interviews ; Qualitative research ; Quality Assurance ; Quality Control ; Reliability ; Research Design ; Research Universities ; School facilities ; Semi Structured Interviews ; Structured Interviews ; Student Evaluation ; Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance ; Student Reaction ; Student Satisfaction ; Studies ; Summative Evaluation ; Teacher Effectiveness ; Teacher evaluations ; Teachers, Rating of ; Teaching ; Teaching Methods ; Teaching Skills ; Tenure ; University faculty ; University students ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Canadian journal of higher education (1975), 2019-04, Vol.49 (1), p.85-103</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2019 The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education</rights><rights>2019. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3225-af9e2211c2e09ac0fa2cedd3f47e42dd3e179635be0e430a319b8244d76521593</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,687,776,780,860,881,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ1214521$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nocente, Norma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forgie, Sarah</creatorcontrib><title>“Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)</title><title>Canadian journal of higher education (1975)</title><description>Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) have been the most consistently administered tool, and they are still extensively used in higher education institutions to assess teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to explore how SET are used by administrators in the teaching evaluation process at a large, research-intensive Canadian university. A basic qualitative research design was used in this project, and semi-structured interviews were used to obtain administrators' experiences. The research question that guided this study was: How are SET (and other tools) used in the evaluation of teaching at this university? Findings showed that although participants mostly utilized a couple of SET statements as indicators of effective teaching, they were certainly aware of the intrinsic issues concerning these tools, and that they are continually seeking to obtain more evidence if SET results are below their benchmarks.</description><subject>Administrator Attitudes</subject><subject>Benchmarking</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>College Faculty</subject><subject>College Students</subject><subject>Education parks</subject><subject>Educational evaluation</subject><subject>Educational Quality</subject><subject>Evaluation Methods</subject><subject>Feedback (Response)</subject><subject>Foreign Countries</subject><subject>Formative Evaluation</subject><subject>Gender Differences</subject><subject>Higher Education</subject><subject>Instructional Effectiveness</subject><subject>Interpersonal Attraction</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Quality Assurance</subject><subject>Quality Control</subject><subject>Reliability</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>Research Universities</subject><subject>School facilities</subject><subject>Semi Structured Interviews</subject><subject>Structured Interviews</subject><subject>Student Evaluation</subject><subject>Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance</subject><subject>Student Reaction</subject><subject>Student Satisfaction</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Summative Evaluation</subject><subject>Teacher Effectiveness</subject><subject>Teacher evaluations</subject><subject>Teachers, Rating of</subject><subject>Teaching</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Teaching Skills</subject><subject>Tenure</subject><subject>University faculty</subject><subject>University students</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0316-1218</issn><issn>2293-6602</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GA5</sourceid><recordid>eNptUc1uEzEQthBIhMILICFZcIHDBnvs_TG3qAoUVJVDwtlyvLOJo2Sd2k6k3vIYIMHL5UnqdFHFAc1hRvN98_sR8pqzsayruvlo1yscH6RyfMybBuryCRkBKFFUFYOnZMQErwoOvHlOXsS4ZowBY2pEDqfj75nf4sK3d3RlIk2eJjR2RdMK6en4cxG8tX7jTsdf1Pp9iHg6_vlEJ-3W9S6mYJIPkd6Yg1ua5PolnaV9i32i04PZ7HPK95H6js7PTc_4-9l0_uEledaZTcRXf_0F-fF5Or-8Kq6_f_l6ObkurAAoC9MpBODcAjJlLOsMWGxb0ckaJeQAea0qUS6QoRTMCK4WDUjZ1lUJvFTigrwZ-mJwVu-C25pwp6ff8idkZmT83YDvgr_dY0x6nW_s80oaABiXHCqZWW8H1tJsULu-8_lua3fuVpcKyrKuxHnU-D-kbC1unfU9di7nJ_8WwFBgg48xYPe4H2f6QVV9VlU_qKoHVcU9U2SYFg</recordid><startdate>20190401</startdate><enddate>20190401</enddate><creator>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco</creator><creator>Nocente, Norma</creator><creator>Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca</creator><creator>Forgie, Sarah</creator><general>The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education</general><general>Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FQ</scope><scope>8FV</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>GA5</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190401</creationdate><title>“Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)</title><author>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco ; Nocente, Norma ; Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca ; Forgie, Sarah</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3225-af9e2211c2e09ac0fa2cedd3f47e42dd3e179635be0e430a319b8244d76521593</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Administrator Attitudes</topic><topic>Benchmarking</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>College Faculty</topic><topic>College Students</topic><topic>Education parks</topic><topic>Educational evaluation</topic><topic>Educational Quality</topic><topic>Evaluation Methods</topic><topic>Feedback (Response)</topic><topic>Foreign Countries</topic><topic>Formative Evaluation</topic><topic>Gender Differences</topic><topic>Higher Education</topic><topic>Instructional Effectiveness</topic><topic>Interpersonal Attraction</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Quality Assurance</topic><topic>Quality Control</topic><topic>Reliability</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>Research Universities</topic><topic>School facilities</topic><topic>Semi Structured Interviews</topic><topic>Structured Interviews</topic><topic>Student Evaluation</topic><topic>Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance</topic><topic>Student Reaction</topic><topic>Student Satisfaction</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Summative Evaluation</topic><topic>Teacher Effectiveness</topic><topic>Teacher evaluations</topic><topic>Teachers, Rating of</topic><topic>Teaching</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Teaching Skills</topic><topic>Tenure</topic><topic>University faculty</topic><topic>University students</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nocente, Norma</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Forgie, Sarah</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database</collection><collection>Canadian Business & Current Affairs Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery)</collection><jtitle>Canadian journal of higher education (1975)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vargas-Madriz, Luis Francisco</au><au>Nocente, Norma</au><au>Best-Bertwistle, Rebecca</au><au>Forgie, Sarah</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ1214521</ericid><atitle>“Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET)</atitle><jtitle>Canadian journal of higher education (1975)</jtitle><date>2019-04-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>49</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>85</spage><epage>103</epage><pages>85-103</pages><issn>0316-1218</issn><eissn>2293-6602</eissn><abstract>Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) have been the most consistently administered tool, and they are still extensively used in higher education institutions to assess teaching effectiveness. The purpose of this study was to explore how SET are used by administrators in the teaching evaluation process at a large, research-intensive Canadian university. A basic qualitative research design was used in this project, and semi-structured interviews were used to obtain administrators' experiences. The research question that guided this study was: How are SET (and other tools) used in the evaluation of teaching at this university? Findings showed that although participants mostly utilized a couple of SET statements as indicators of effective teaching, they were certainly aware of the intrinsic issues concerning these tools, and that they are continually seeking to obtain more evidence if SET results are below their benchmarks.</abstract><cop>Toronto</cop><pub>The Canadian Society for the Study of Higher Education</pub><doi>10.47678/cjhe.v49i1.188275</doi><tpages>19</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0316-1218 |
| ispartof | Canadian journal of higher education (1975), 2019-04, Vol.49 (1), p.85-103 |
| issn | 0316-1218 2293-6602 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_eric_primary_EJ1214521 |
| source | ERIC - Full Text Only (Discovery); Education Source; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Administrator Attitudes Benchmarking Bias College Faculty College Students Education parks Educational evaluation Educational Quality Evaluation Methods Feedback (Response) Foreign Countries Formative Evaluation Gender Differences Higher Education Instructional Effectiveness Interpersonal Attraction Interviews Qualitative research Quality Assurance Quality Control Reliability Research Design Research Universities School facilities Semi Structured Interviews Structured Interviews Student Evaluation Student Evaluation of Teacher Performance Student Reaction Student Satisfaction Studies Summative Evaluation Teacher Effectiveness Teacher evaluations Teachers, Rating of Teaching Teaching Methods Teaching Skills Tenure University faculty University students Validity |
| title | “Somebody has to teach the ‘broccoli’ course”: Administrators Navigating Student Evaluations of Teaching (SET) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T05%3A54%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_eric_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%E2%80%9CSomebody%20has%20to%20teach%20the%20%E2%80%98broccoli%E2%80%99%20course%E2%80%9D:%20Administrators%20Navigating%20Student%20Evaluations%20of%20Teaching%20(SET)&rft.jtitle=Canadian%20journal%20of%20higher%20education%20(1975)&rft.au=Vargas-Madriz,%20Luis%20Francisco&rft.date=2019-04-01&rft.volume=49&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=85&rft.epage=103&rft.pages=85-103&rft.issn=0316-1218&rft.eissn=2293-6602&rft_id=info:doi/10.47678/cjhe.v49i1.188275&rft_dat=%3Cgale_eric_%3EA592557639%3C/gale_eric_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2220141264&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A592557639&rft_ericid=EJ1214521&rfr_iscdi=true |