The Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching in Higher Education: Love me, love my lectures?

By Mark Shevlin, P. Banyard, Mark N. O. Davies, Mark D. Griffiths. 2000

323 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f2e592eb21f91aa92660eb5a0afb855ce78ada80

How researchers see this paper

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

In Education

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Attractiveness, easiness and other issues: student evaluations of professors on Ratemyprofessors.com (2008, unknown): “( 2000 ) suggests that SET are skewed by an instructor’s humor and charisma.”
On the Validity of Student Evaluation of Teaching (2013, background): “Shevlin et al. (2000) defined a charisma factor that explains a large portion of the variance in several factors (69% and .39% in the factors Lecturer Ability and Module Attributes, respectively) included in their SET instrument.”
The desired teaching qualities of lecturers in higher education: a means end analysis (2006, background): “Similarly, Shevlin et al. (2000) mention “lecturer charisma” and Andreson (2000) points out tha students desire lecturers who are caring, enthusiastic, and strongly interested in the students’ progress.”
Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness (2005, background): “The chair, Shore (1975), argued that faculty should prepare their own evidence for teaching effectiveness – a “portfolio of evidence” (p.”
Student Evaluations of Teaching (Mostly) Do Not Measure Teaching Effectiveness (2016, background): “Age, [11], charisma [13], and physical attractiveness [14,15] are also associated with SET.”
Student evaluations of teaching: combining the meta-analyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use (2012, background): “2000 ;), it is no surprise that there have been much research and debate on SETs.”
Student evaluation of instruction in higher education: exploring issues of validity and reliability (2012, unknown): “Other researchers such as Burdsal and Bardo (1986), Ellett et al. (1997) and Shevlin et al. (2000) employed statistical methods such as factor analysis, hierarchical linear modelling and structural equation modelling (SEM) to validate the studentrating instrument.”
Teacher professionalism and student evaluation of teaching: will better teachers receive higher ratings and will better students give higher ratings? (2006, background): “( 2000 ), for example, found that their teacher charisma factor explained 69% and 37% of the variation in their ‘lecturer ability’ and ‘module attributes’ factors respectively, and they suggest that a central higher‐order factor (‘charisma’) influences student ratings of teaching effectiveness.”
Assessing quality assurance in higher education: quality managers’ perceptions of effectiveness (2018, background): “…that evaluation results do not reliably and validly reflect teaching quality and can thus not be used as a basis for management decisions, particularly when these management decisions have budgetary relevance (for an overview, see Pohlenz 2009; Shevlin et al. 2000; Zhao and Gallant 2012).”
Student evaluation of courses: what predicts satisfaction? (2010, background): “For example, Shevlin, Banyard, Davies and Griffith ( 2000 ) created a list focused on the lecturer whilst examining the relationship between charisma and ratings of teacher effectiveness (e.”