Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using Student Ratings of Teaching Quality in Feedback and Evaluation: An Overview of Policy and Practice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quo vadis Forschung zu Schülerrückmeldungen zum Unterricht

  • 2596 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides an overview of how survey-based ratings of teaching quality have been used in feedback and evaluation systems in the United States. Survey questionnaires are becoming increasingly popular as a mechanism for capturing information about instruction and other aspects of the learning environment. This chapter discusses the historical arguments in favor of using student ratings to assess teaching quality and describes the limitations of such ratings. Additionally, the current policy environment is described to provide a context for understanding the proliferation of survey-based ratings in states, districts, and schools. Two examples of survey feedback cycles are provided. The chapter concludes with a discussion of three areas for future research, raising issues that are important for practitioners to consider when using student ratings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    There is a parallel tradition of using student ratings in higher education that dates back to at least the 1920 s (Marsh 1987). Discussion of higher education settings is outside of the scope of the current chapter. For comprehensive review of this topic, see Marsh (1987). More recent literature reviews are provided by Eva (2018) and Benton and Cashin (2012).

  2. 2.

    Relatedly, it is important to appraise evidence that inferences about subgroup differences are valid. As mentioned above, subgroup differences may reflect meaningful differences in student experiences, but may also result from other extraneous factors, including cultural bias and reference bias. See Schweig, Hamilton and Baker (2019) and Kostyo, Cardichon and Darling-Hammond (2018) for a more detailed discussion of this topic.

References

  • Arthur, M. W., Hawkins, J. D., Pollard, J. A., Catalano, R. F., and Baglioni, A. J. (2002). Measuring risk and protective factors for substance use, delinquency, and other adolescent problem behavior: The Communities That Care Youth Survey. Evaluation Review, 26(6), 575–601.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacher-Hicks, A., Chin, M. J., Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2019). An experimental evaluation of three teacher quality measures: Value-added, classroom observations, and student surveys. Economics of Education Review, 73, 101919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balch, R. T. (2012). The Validation Of A Student Survey On Teacher Practice. Nashville: Vanderbilt University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2012). Student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature (IDEA PAPER# 50). Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.388.8561.

  • Bijlsma, H. J., Visscher, A. J., Dobbelaer, M. J., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2019). Does smartphone-assisted student feedback affect teachers’ teaching quality? Technology, pedagogy and education, 28(2), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bundick, M. J. (2011). Scale validation of the i know my class survey. ME Quaglia Institute for Student Aspirations: Portland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burniske, J., & Meibaum, D. (2012). The use of student perceptual data as a measure of teaching effectiveness. Texas Comprehensive Center: Briefing Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chicago Consortium on School Research. (2011). 5 Essentials school report: The 5 Essentials full report. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Croft, M., Guffy, G., & Vitale, D. (2018). The shrinking use of growth: Teacher evaluation legislation since ESSA. Iowa City: ACT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure" change": Or should we? Psychological Bulletin, 74(1), 68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Den Brok, P., Brekelmans, M., & Wubbels, T. (2006). Multilevel issues in research using students’ perceptions of learning environments: The case of the Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DePaoli, J. L., Atwell, M. N., & Bridgeland, J. (2017). Ready to lead: A national principal survey on how social and emotional learning can prepare children and transform schools. A report for CASEL. Washington, DC: Civic Enterprises.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ditton, H., & Arnoldt, B. (2004). Schülerbefragungen zum Fachunterricht-Feedback an Lehrkräfte. Empirische Pädagogik, 18(1), 115–139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty, K. M., & Jacobs, S. (2013). State of the states 2013: Connect the dots-- Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downer, J. T., Stuhlman, M., Schweig, J., Martínez, J. F., & Ruzek, E. (2015). Measuring effective teacher-student interactions from a student perspective: A multi-level analysis. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(5–6), 722–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dretzke, B. J., Sheldon, T. D., & Lim, A. (2015). What do K-12 teachers think about including student surveys in their performance ratings? Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 27(3), 185–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dynarski, M., Clarke, L., Cobb, B., Finn, J., Rumberger, R., & Smink, J. (2008). Dropout Prevention. IES Practice Guide. NCEE 2008-4025. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Echterhoff, G., Higgins, E. T., & Levine, J. M. (2009). Shared reality: Experiencing commonality with others’ inner states about the world. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(5), 496–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Educator Effectiveness System (2013). Understanding Hawaii's educator effectiveness system. The Hawaii State Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Educator Effectiveness System (2019). Manual for evaluators and participants. The Hawaii State Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, C. R., Kramer, T. R., & Tian, R. G. (2003). Return to academic standards: A critique of student evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance In Education, 11(1), 37–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, N. (2018). Annotated literature review: Student evaluations of teaching (SET). Retrieved from: https://www.ulfa.ca/statement-on-student-evaluations-on-teaching/.

  • Fauth, B., Decristan, J., Rieser, S., Klieme, E., & Büttner, G. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Göllner, R., Lenske, L., Praetorius, A., & Wagner, W. (2020a). Who sees what? conceptual considerations on the measurement of teaching quality from different perspectives. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, Beiheft, 66(1), 138–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fauth, B., Wagner, W., Bertram, C., Göllner, R., Roloff, J., Lüdtke, O., ... & Trautwein, U. (2020b). Don’t blame the teacher? The need to account for classroom characteristics in evaluations of teaching quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(6), 1284–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. F. (2008). The Tripod project framework. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson, R. F. (2012). Can student surveys measure teaching quality? Phi Delta Kappan, 94(3), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1981). Validity and Use of the My Class Inventory. Science Education, 65(2), 145–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, D., Fraser, B., & Cresswell, J. (1995). Using the “Questionnaire on Teacher Interaction” in the professional development of teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 20(1), 8–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Follman, J. (1992). Secondary school students’ ratings of teacher effectiveness. The High School Journal, 75(3), 168–178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1990). Individualised Classroom Environment Questionnaire. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1991). Two decades of classroom environment research. In B. J. Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Hrsg.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (S. 3–27). Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning environments research, 1(1), 7–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J. (2007). Classroom learning environments. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Hrsg.), Handbook of research in science education (S. 103–124). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B. J., & McRobbie, C. J. (1995). Science laboratory classroom environments at schools and universities: A cross-national study∗. Educational Research and Evaluation, 1(4), 289–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, B.J., Fisher, D.L., & McRobbie, C.J. (1996, April). Development, validation, and use of personal and class forms of a new classroom environment instrument. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, H., & Vogt, A. (2013). Self-evaluation of teaching: How teachers perceive results from a student feedback. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 41(3), 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, H. (2014). Effects of student feedback as a method of self-evaluating the quality of teaching. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 42, 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geiger, T., Amrein-Beardsley, A., & Chan, S. J. (2019). Student perception surveys for K-12 teacher evaluation in the United States: A survey of surveys. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1602943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glazerman, S., Loeb, S., Goldhaber, D., Staiger, D., Raudenbush, S., & Whitehurst, G. (2010). Evaluating teachers: The important role of value-added. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goe, L., Holdheide, L., & Miller, T. (2011). A practical guide to designing comprehensive teacher evaluation systems: A tool to assist in the development of teacher evaluation systems. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, R. T., Billingsley, K., & Yeager, S. (1976). Measuring change and persistence in human affairs: Types of change generated by OD designs. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 12(2), 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfredson, G. D. (1999). The effective school battery: User’s manual. College Park: University of Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory, A., & Fergus, E. (2017). Social and emotional learning and equity in school discipline. The Future of Children, 27(1), 117–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, P., Choe, J., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2011). Report of construct validity and internal consistency findings for the Comprehensive School Climate Inventory. Bronx, NY: Fordham University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What’s wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of personality and social psychology, 82(6), 903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Anderson, D. (1983). Social interdependence and classroom climate. The Journal of Psychology, 114(1), 135–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, P. W., & Hamilton, L. S. (2019). Walking a fine line. Washington, DC: Future Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, K. J., Conn, A. B., Smith, D. B., & Sorra, J. S. (2001). Is everyone in agreement? An exploration of within-group agreement in employee perceptions of the work environment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klostermann, B., White, B., Lichtenberger, E., & Holt, J. (2014). Use of the Illinois 5Essentials Survey data (IERC 2014-2). Edwardsville: Illinois Education Research Council at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konold, T. R., & Cornell, D. (2015). Measurement and structural relations of an authoritative school climate model: A multi-level latent variable investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 53(6), 447–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kostyo, S., Cardichon, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2018). Making ESSA’s equity promise real: State strategies to close the opportunity gap. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koth, C. W., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom-level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraft, M. A., & Gilmour, A. F. (2017). Revisiting the widget effect: Teacher evaluation reforms and the distribution of teacher effectiveness. Educational Researcher, 46(5), 234–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Who is the expert? Construct and criteria validity of student and teacher ratings of instruction. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 231–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kyriakides, L. (2005). Drawing from teacher effectivess research and research into teacher interpersonal behaviour to establish a teacher evaluation system: A study on the use of student ratings to evaluate teacher behaviour. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 40, 44–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, O., Goe, L., & Bell, C. (2009). A practical guide to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loup, K. S., Garland, J. S., Ellett, C. D., & Rugutt, J. K. (1996). Ten years later: Findings from a replication of a study of teacher evaluation practices in our 100 largest school districts. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(3), 203–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., Kunter, M., & Baumert, J. (2006). Reliability and agreement of student ratings of the classroom environment: A reanalysis of TIMSS data. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ma, X., & Willms, J. D. (2004). School disciplinary climate: Characteristics and effects on eighth grade achievement. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 50(2), 169–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W. (1987). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11(3), 253–388.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Trautwein, U., Morin, A. J., Abduljabbar, A. S., & Köller, O. (2012). Classroom climate and contextual effects: Conceptual and methodological issues in the evaluation of group-level effects. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 106–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, J. F. (2012). Consequences of omitting the classroom in multilevel models of schooling: an illustration using opportunity to learn and reading achievement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(3), 305–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mihaly, K., McCaffrey, D. F., Staiger, D. O., & Lockwood, J. R. (2013). A composite estimator of effective teaching. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitra, D. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In D. Thiessen & A. Cook-Sather (Hrsg.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727–744). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moos, R. H., & Trickett, E. J. (1987). Classroom environment scale: Manual. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oort, F. J. (2005). Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 587–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panorama Education. (2015). Validity brief: Panorama student survey. Panorama Education. Retrieved from https://go.panoramaed.com/hubfs/Panorama_January2019%20/Docs/validity-brief.pdf.

  • Peterson, K. D. (2000). Teacher evaluation: A comprehensive guide to new directions and practices. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, K. D., Wahlquist, C., & Bone, K. (2000). Student surveys for school teacher evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(2), 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Price, H. E. (2016). Assessing US public school quality: The advantages of combining internal “consumer ratings” with external NCLB ratings. Educational Policy, 30(3), 403–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, E., & Walsh, K. (2019). State of the states 2019: Teacher and principal evaluation policy. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, J., & Mathis, W. J. (2013). Review of" Have We Identified Effective Teachers?" and "A Composite Estimator of Effective Teaching: Culminating Findings from the Measures of Effective Teaching Project". Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schenke, K., Ruzek, E., Lam, A. C., Karabenick, S. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Heterogeneity of student perceptions of the classroom climate: A latent profile approach. Learning Environments Research, 20(3), 289–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual directed and group directed leader behavior descriptions. The Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 345–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, J., Sud, G., & Crowe, B. (2014). Lessons from the field: The role of student surveys in teacher evaluation and development. Sudbury, MA: Bellwether Education Partners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweig, J. (2014). Cross-level measurement invariance in school and classroom environment surveys: Implications for policy and practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schweig, J., Hamilton, L. S., & Baker, G. (2019). School and classroom climate measures: Considerations for use by state and local education leaders. Santa Monica: RAND.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Seidel, T. (2006). The role of student characteristics in studying micro teaching–learning environments. Learning Environments Research, 9(3), 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinclair, B. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2002). Changing classroom environments in urban middle schools. Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 301–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spooren, P., Mortelmans, D., & Thijssen, P. (2012). ‘Content’versus ‘style’: Acquiescence in student evaluation of teaching? British Educational Research Journal, 38(1), 3–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steele, J. L., Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2010). Incorporating student performance measures into teacher evaluation systems. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, M. P., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). The sensitivity of teacher performance ratings to the design of teacher evaluation systems. Educational Researcher, 46(7), 378–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, P., Dawson, V., & Fraser, B. (1995, April). A constructivist perspective on monitoring classroom learning environments under transformation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Colorado Education Initiative. (2013). Student perception survey technical report. Denver: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timperley, H. (2008). Teacher professional learning and development. Educational practices series-18. Geneva, Switzerland: UNESCO International Bureau of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (2000). Studying and understanding the instructional contexts of classrooms: Using our past to forge our future. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 69–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

  • van der Scheer, E. A., Bijlsma, H. J., & Glas, C. A. (2019). Validity and reliability of student perceptions of teaching quality in primary education. School Effectiveness And School Improvement, 30(1), 30–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The Self–Other Knowledge Asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 98(2), 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voight, A., & Hanson, T. (2012). Summary of existing school climate instruments for middle school. San Francisco, CA: Regional Educational Laboratory West.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voight, A., Hanson, T., O’Malley, M., & Adekanye, L. (2015). The racial school climate gap: Within-school disparities in students’ experiences of safety, support, and connectedness. American Journal Of Community Psychology, 56(3–4), 252–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vriesema, C. C., & Gehlbach, H. (2019). Assessing survey satisficing: The impact of unmotivated questionnaire respondents on data quality. Working Paper. Policy Analysis for California Education, PACE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walberg, H. J., & Anderson, G. J. (1968). Classroom climate and individual learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 414–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, T. L., Kelcey, B., & Ruzek, E. (2016). What can student perception surveys tell us about teaching? Empirically testing the underlying structure of the tripod student perception survey. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1834–1868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, J. R., & Halpern-Manners, A. (2012). Panel conditioning in longitudinal social science surveys. Sociological Methods & Research, 41(4), 491–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisberg, D., Sexton, S., Mulhern, J., Keeling, D., Schunck, J., Palcisco, A., & Morgan, K. (2009). The widget effect: Our national failure to acknowledge and act on differences in teacher effectiveness. New York, NY: New Teacher Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4(1), 10–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wubbels, T., & Levy, J. (Eds.). (1993). Do you know what you look like?: Interpersonal relationships in education. London, UK: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • YouthTruth. (2013). Survey design and methodology. Retrieved from https://www.youthtruthsurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/YouthTruth-Design-and-Methodology-Report-2016.pdf.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA

    Jonathan D. Schweig

Authors
  1. Jonathan D. Schweig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonathan D. Schweig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Fakultät für Bildungswissenschaften, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Kerstin Göbel

  2. Institut Sekundarstufe I und II, Pädagogische Hochschule FHNW, Windisch, Switzerland

    Corinne Wyss

  3. Fakultät für Bildungswissenschaften, Universität Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany

    Katharina Neuber

  4. Institut Sekundarstufe I, PH Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Meike Raaflaub

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schweig, J.D. (2021). Using Student Ratings of Teaching Quality in Feedback and Evaluation: An Overview of Policy and Practice. In: Göbel, K., Wyss, C., Neuber, K., Raaflaub, M. (eds) Quo vadis Forschung zu Schülerrückmeldungen zum Unterricht. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32694-4_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32694-4_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-32693-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-32694-4

  • eBook Packages: Education and Social Work (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation