Do Higher Grades Lead to Favorable Student Evaluations?

By Paul N. Isely, Harinder Singh. 2005

184 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/19f45b18082a875947d5eaa5a702fd6c949e7f19

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Accounting

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Determinants of How Students Evaluate Teachers (2006, methodology): “Before leaving this topic, it is useful to compare further my results with those of Isely and Singh (2005). Despite the concerns already noted about the variable, I constructed a grade surprise variable similar to that suggested by Isely and Singh. Following Isely and Singh, I carried out a series o”
What Determines Student Evaluation Scores? A Random Effects Analysis of Undergraduate Economics Classes (2009, unknown): “However, Krautmann and Sander [1999] also considered the endogeneity question and reached the opposite conclusion.”
On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching (2013, background): “…other authors continue to advocate the grading-leniency hypothesis (i.e., teachers can buy good evaluations by giving high grades; see, e.g., Isely & Singh, 2005; Langbein, 2008; McPherson, 2006; McPherson & Todd Jewell, 2007), drawing upon attribution theories and measures of the…”
Gender biases in student evaluations of teaching (2017, background): “Professors have an incentive to inflate students’ seminar grades in order to “purchase” higher SET scores (e.g. Krautmann and Sander, 1999; Isely and Singh, 2005; McPherson, 2006; Ewing, 2012).”
Exogenous and Endogenous Factors Influencing Students' Performance in Undergraduate Accounting Modules (2009, background): “This could bias students' perceptions and evaluations of the exogenous factors (Isely, 2005 ).”
Measuring teaching quality in higher education: assessing selection bias in course evaluations (2017, background): “Indeed, evaluation results tend to partially reflect student, course, and teacher characteristics which may not be related to teaching quality (e.g. see Berk 2005; Isely and Singh 2005; MacNell et al. 2015; McPherson et al. 2009).”