Advertisement

Higher Education

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 411–418 | Cite as

The effects of organizational factors on student ratings and perceived instruction

  • Tamar Avi-Itzhak
  • Lya Kremer
Article

Abstract

The objective of this study is to explore a) which dimension of student ratings and which aspects of perceived instruction are affected by the two organizational factors, enrollment size and academic affiliation, and b) the nature of their effect. Two thousand five hundred students participating in 125 courses evaluated their instructors on Q-1 “Evaluation of Instruction by Students”. The 125 evaluated instructors responded to Q-2 “Perception of own Instruction” indicating the extent to which they employ various teaching planning and strategy attributes (TPS). Major findings suggest that academic affiliation has no effect on student ratings yet affects abstract aspects of perceived instruction. Instructors of the social sciences, unlike those of the humanities, manifest a vocational outlook in their instruction planning. Data indicate that enrollment size has an effect on the dimensions of student ratings and the perceived instruction, referring to concrete aspects of teaching. Students participating in small classes are more critical of instruction than those in larger classes. The nature of its effect on perceived instruction is mainly in terms of practical solutions of teaching methods and strategies and is hardly manifested in the planning phase of instruction. The relevance of these findings to university administrators is also discussed.

Keywords

Social Science Large Class Teaching Method Planning Phase Organizational Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aleamoni, L. M. (1978). “The usefulness of student evaluations in improving college teaching,” Instructional Science 5: 95–105.Google Scholar
  2. Blalock, H. M. (1972). Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  3. Braunstein, D. N., Klein, G. A. and Pachle, M. (1973). “Feedback expectancy and shifts in student ratings of college faculty,” Journal of Applied Psychology 58:254–255.Google Scholar
  4. Centra, J. A. (1973). “Effectiveness of student feedback in modifying college instruction,” Journal of Educational Psychology 65: 395–401.Google Scholar
  5. Doyle, K. O. Jr. and Whitely, S. E. (1974). “Student ratings as criteria for effective college teaching,” American Educational Research Journal 11: 259–274.Google Scholar
  6. Goldschmid, M. L. and Goldschmid, B. (1976). “The role of instructional management in improving instruction in higher education,” Paper presented at the third General Conference on Instructional Management in Higher Education, 13–16 Sept., Paris, OECD, CER.Google Scholar
  7. Hofman, J. and Kremer, L. (1980). “Attitudes toward higher education and course evaluation,” Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 (5): 610–617.Google Scholar
  8. McKeatchie, W. and Lin, Y. Y. (1975). “Use of student rating in evaluation of college teaching,” Final report, Ann Arbor, Mich.Google Scholar
  9. Rotem, A. and Glasman, N. S. (1979). “On the effectiveness of students' evaluative feedback to university teachers,” Review of Educational Research 49 (3): 497–511.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Elsevier Science Publishers B.V 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamar Avi-Itzhak
    • 1
  • Lya Kremer
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Haifa, School of EducationIsrael

Personalised recommendations