I came across a fascinating discussion on the use of student evaluations to measure teaching effectiveness upon following this Observational Epidemiology blog post by Mark, a statistical consultant. The original paper by Scott Carrell and James West uses value-added modeling to estimate teachers’ contributions to students’ grades in introductory courses and in subsequent courses, then analyzes the relationship between those contributions and student evaluations. (An ungated version of the paper is also available.) Key conclusions are:
Student evaluations are positively correlated with contemporaneous professor value‐added and negatively correlated with follow‐on student achievement. That is, students appear to reward higher grades in the introductory course but punish professors who increase deep learning (introductory course professor value‐added in follow‐on courses).
We find that less experienced and less qualified professors produce students who perform significantly better in the contemporaneous course being taught, whereas more experienced and highly qualified professors produce students who perform better in the follow‐on related curriculum.
Not having closely followed the research on this, I’ll simply note some key comments from other blogs.
Several have posted links that suggest an endorsement of this paper’s conclusion, such as George Mason University professor of economics Tyler Cowen, Harvard professor of economics Greg Mankiw, and Northwestern professor of managerial economics Sandeep Baliga. Michael Bishop, a contributor to Permutations (“official blog of the Mathematical Sociology Section of the American Sociological Association“), provides some more detail in his analysis:
In my post on Babcock’s and Marks’ research, I touched on the possible unintended consequences of student evaluations of professors. This paper gives new reasons for concern (not to mention much additional evidence, e.g. that physical attractiveness strongly boosts student evaluations).
That said, the scary thing is that even with random assignment, rich data, and careful analysis there are multiple, quite different, explanations.
The obvious first possibility is that inexperienced professors, (perhaps under pressure to get good teaching evaluations) focus strictly on teaching students what they need to know for good grades. More experienced professors teach a broader curriculum, the benefits of which you might take on faith but needn’t because their students do better in the follow-up course!
After citing this alternative explanation from the authors:
Students of low value added professors in the introductory course may increase effort in follow-on courses to help “erase” their lower than expected grade in the introductory course.
Bishop also notes that motivating students to invest more effort in future courses would be a desirable effect of good professors as well. (But how to distinguish between “good” and “bad” methods for producing this motivation isn’t obvious.)
Others critique the article and defend the usefulness of student evaluations with observations that provoke further fascinating discussions.
Andrew Gelman, Columbia professor of statistics and political science, expresses skepticism about the claims:
Carrell and West estimate that the effects of instructors on performance in the follow-on class is as large as the effects on the class they’re teaching. This seems hard to believe, and it seems central enough to their story that I don’t know what to think about everything else in the paper.
At Education Sector, Forrest Hinton expresses strong reservations about the conclusions and the methods:
If you’re like me, you are utterly perplexed by a system that would mostly determine the quality of a Calculus I instructor by students’ performance in a Calculus II or aeronautical engineering course taught by a different instructor, while discounting students’ mastery of Calculus I concepts.
The trouble with complex value-added models, like the one used in this report, is that the number of people who have the technical skills necessary to participate in the debate and critique process is very limited—mostly to academics themselves, who have their own special interests.
Jeff Ely, Northwestern professor of economics, objects to the authors’ interpretation of their results:
I don’t see any way the authors have ruled out the following equally plausible explanation for the statistical findings. First, students are targeting a GPA. If I am an outstanding teacher and they do unusually well in my class they don’t need to spend as much effort in their next class as those who had lousy teachers, did poorly this time around, and have some catching up to do next time. Second, students recognize when they are being taught by an outstanding teacher and they give him good evaluations.
In agreement, Ed Dolan, an economist who was also for ten years “a teacher and administrator in a graduate business program that did not have tenure,” comments on Jeff Ely’s blog:
I reject the hypothesis that students give high evaluations to instructors who dumb down their courses, teach to the test, grade high, and joke a lot in class. On the contrary, they resent such teachers because they are not getting their money’s worth. I observed a positive correlation between overall evaluation scores and a key evaluation-form item that indicated that the course required more work than average. Informal conversations with students known to be serious tended to confirm the formal evaluation scores.
Dean Eckles, PhD candidate at Stanford’s CHIMe lab offers this response to Andrew Gelman’s blog post (linked above):
Students like doing well on tests etc. This happens when the teacher is either easier (either through making evaluations easier or teaching more directly to the test) or more effective.
Conditioning on this outcome, is conditioning on a collider that introduces a negative dependence between teacher quality and other factors affecting student satisfaction (e.g., how easy they are).
From Jeff Ely’s blog, a comment by Brian Moore raises this critical question:
“Second, students recognize when they are being taught by an outstanding teacher and they give him good evaluations.”
Do we know this for sure? Perhaps they know when they have an outstanding teacher, but by definition, those are relatively few.
These discussions raise many key questions, namely:
- how to measure good teaching;
- tensions between short-term and long-term assessment and evaluation;
- how well students’ grades measure learning, and how grades impact their perception of learning;
- the relationship between learning, motivation, and affect (satisfaction);
- but perhaps most deeply, the question of student metacognition.
The anecdotal comments others have provided about how students respond on evaluations are more fairly couched in the terms “some students.” Given the considerable variability among students, interpreting student evaluations needs to account for those individual differences in teasing out the actual teaching and learning that underlie self-reported perceptions. Buried within those evaluations may be a valuable signal masked by a lot of noise– or more problematically, multiple signals that cancel and drown each other out.
For example, see this review of research demonstrating that training which produces better short-term performance can produce worse long-term learning:
Schmidt, R.A., & Bjork, R.A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.