Management by Results: Student Evaluation of Faculty Teaching and the Mis-Measurement of Performance.

By L. Langbein. 2008

163 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Using data on 4 years of courses at American University, regression results show that actual grades have a significant, positive effect on student evaluations of teaching (SETs), controlling for expected grade and fixed effects for both faculty and courses, and for possible endogeneity. Implications are that the SET is a faulty measure of teaching quality and grades a faulty signal of future job performance. Students, faculty, and provost appear to be engaged in an individually rational but socially destructive game of grade inflation centered on the link between SETs and grades. When performance is hard to measure, pay-for-performance, embodied by the link between SETs and faculty pay, may have unintended adverse consequences.

Subfields: Accounting, Education

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d569606249ee3aacabc2688e2d72c523b1343710

How researchers see this paper

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

In Accounting

1. Kimberly M. Judson
2. Bert Brockx
3. Steven A. Taylor
4. D. Mortelmans
5. H. Hornstein
6. P. Spooren

In Education

1. H. Hornstein
2. Kimberly M. Judson
3. Bert Brockx
4. Steven A. Taylor
5. D. Mortelmans
6. P. Spooren
7. M. Goos
8. A. Salomons

Citations in the corpus

• On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching (2013, background): “Nevertheless, 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 inst”
• Moving from Marketization to Marketing of Higher Education: The Co-Creation of Value in Higher Education. (2014, result): “, satisfaction) in assessing faculty performance related to the delivery of pedagogy (Chen & Hoshower, 2003; Clayson & Haley, 2011; Culver, 2010; Denson, Loveday, & Dalton, 2010; Dolnicar & Grun, 2009; Ewing, 2012; Germain & Scandura, 2005; Langbein, 2008; Pounder, 2007; Shevlin, Bantard, Davies, & ”
• Student evaluations of teaching are an inadequate assessment tool for evaluating faculty performance (2017, background): “In fact, this relationship is anything Page 4 of 8 but unequivocal (for example, Langbein, 2008).”