Perceived Purpose of Midterm Evaluations and the Effect on Student Responses Andrew Caudill Western Kentucky University Dr. Steven Wininger Western Kentucky University

Previous Research: Cashin (1995) reviewed numerous studies: Does the Disclosed Purpose of Student Feedback Affect the Nature and Quality of the Feedback? Previous Research: Cashin (1995) reviewed numerous studies: purpose of student ratings is to make personnel decisions as compared to those that are used for improvement as the purpose.

Previous Research (cont.) Driscoll and Goodwin’s (1979) three types of directions: 1) ratings to make promotion, tenure and salary decisions about the professor. 2) course improvements 3) no explicit purpose articulated (ratings were to be given to the course instructor) 92 classes surveyed

Previous Research (cont.) Young, Delli and Johnson (1999) Midterm evaluations 141 graduate students The three sets of directions: 1) no directions given 2) Course Improvement 3) Personnel decision involving salary distribution.

Primary Research Questions & Hypothesis Does perceived purpose of course evaluation affect student ratings? Does attribution of performance due to ability and effort affect ratings? Tenure, Promotion, & Salary directions will yield the highest ratings Participants attributing performance to ability and effort will give higher ratings.

Secondary Questions Does expected grades in course affect the type of evaluations given? Does type of Attributions linked with grades affect the performance in the course?

Attribution Theory Concerned with how people explain the behaviors of themselves and/or others. 8 Categories Strategy Ability Person’s teaching Task Difficulty Short Term Effort Health/Mood Help from others Luck

Method Participants:338 total recruited from 4 introductory Psychology courses. 198 females 132 males

Measures History of the Student Instructional Report (SIR II) Best Course Evaluation Instrument Educational Testing Service (ETS)

Measures Student Instructional Report (SIR) II contained 45 items to assess eight aspects of instruction and evaluation: 1) course organization and planning 2) communication 3) faculty/student interaction 4) assignments, exams, and grading 5) supplementary instructional methods 6) course outcomes 7) student effort and involvement 8) course difficulty, work load and pace.

Measures (cont.) Only five of the eight aspects of the SIR II were used: course evaluation and planning communication faculty/student interaction assignments, exams, and grading course difficulty, work load, and pace

Procedures Professors were approached and informed of main purpose of study Students were surveyed during either the 7th or 8th week Preface to administration Oral Directions “you are about to complete a midterm evaluation of your instructor. Please note that…” – located on all evaluations

Procedures (cont.) Three different directions were used: …the results of the evaluation will be used 1) by the instructor to improve the instructor’s approach to teaching for the rest of the semester. 2) by the instructor to improve the course and the instructor’s approach to teaching for the next semester. 3) used by the administration to make tenure, promotion, and salary decisions about the instructor.

Results Directions no significant differences, only trends

Results Attributions Significant multivariate effect but no significant univariate effects

Results (cont.) Grade O&P Com F/S I AEG O & P .16 .81 .21 .78 .83 .14 Expected Grade There was a significant relationship between expected grade and ratings given Grade O&P Com F/S I AEG O & P .16 .81 .21 .78 .83 .14 .67 .69 .31 .68 .71 .86 All correlations significant at p < .01

Results (cont.) Attribution of Expected Grade Overall Highest ratings for three of the four SIR subscales: Teacher, Strategy, Effort However, with the AEG items, the highest rating attributed performance to ability then strategy and effort Overall Directions and Perceptions of purpose resulted in a trend, tenure/promotion/salary = higher ratings. Higher expected grades = higher ratings. Grade inflation may have impact on evaluation distributions i.e., class with all A’s = higher ratings

Questions?