Main Article Content
The paper sheds the light upon the problem of students’ evaluation of teaching (SET) in the context of higher education. The study analyzes recent publications in the area of methodology of SET, its practices and approaches in different countries. As far as the problem of SET is extensively discussed from the methodological and administrative points of view this research focusses on the students’ perceptions and attitudes to SET. To collect the data a special online questionnaire tool was designed and shared with the students and teachers from Jordan, Pakistan, Czech Republic, Poland, Turkey, Algeria, Syria and Morocco. The responses were analyzed to obtain the information: 1) Is SET in practice of the universities?; 2) What are the methods of administrating SET?; 3) What are the students’ attitudes to SET?; 4) What is the impact of SET on the teaching practices?. Based upon the data obtained the paper discusses the common tendencies of SET and students’ attitudes towards its value , also it provides recommendations for enhancing the quality of SET and its impact upon the university education.
Andersen, D. (2016) Evaluative Feedback: How K-12 Teachers Respond. Walden Dissertation and Doctoral Studies. Scholar Works, Walden University. Retrieved on 5 of May, 2020 from https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/
Blair, E. & Noel, K.V. (2014) Improving higher education practice through student evaluation systems: is the student voice being heard?, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39:7, 879-894, DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2013.875984
Boysen, Guy A. (2015). Uses and Misuses of Student Evaluations of Teaching: The Interpretation of Differences in Teaching Evaluation Means Irrespective of Statistical Information. Teaching of Psychology, 42(2), 109-118.
Chan, C. K.Y., Luk, L. & Zeng, M. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of student evaluations of teaching, Educational Research and Evaluation, 20:4, 275-289, DOI: 10.1080/13803611.2014.932698
Ching, G. (2018). A literature review on the student evaluation of teaching: An examination of the search, experience, and credence qualities of SET. In Higher Education Evaluation and Development, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 63-84. https://doi.org/10.1108/HEED-04-2018-0009
Henry A. Hornstein (2017). Student Evaluations of Teaching are an Inadequate Assessment Tool for Evaluating Faculty Performance, Cogent Education, 4:1. 13004016. Retrieved on 10 of April, 2020 from https://www.cogentoa.com/article/10.1080/2331186X.2017.1304016
Huybers, T. (2014). Student evaluation of teaching: the use of best-worst scaling. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 39, 4, 496-513.
Ernst, David. (2014). Expectancy theory outcomes and student evaluations of teaching. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20, 7-8
Estemali, H. (2015). The effects of survey timing on student evaluation of teaching measures obtained using online surveys. Journal of Marketing Education, 37, 54-64.
Feistauer, D., Richter, T. (2018) Validity of students’ evaluations of teaching: Biasing effects of likability and prior subject interest. In: Studies in Educational Evaluation, Volume 59, December 2018, pp.168-178. Retrieved on 5 of May, 2020 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X18300257
Mart, C. (2017). Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness in Higher Education. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 2017, Vol. 7, No. 10 ISSN: 2222-6990. Retrieved on 1 of April, 2020 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325123934_Student_Evaluations_of_Teaching_Effectiveness_in_Higher_Education
McCann, S., & Gardner, C. (2014). Student personality differences are related to their responses on instructor evaluation forms. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(4), 412-426.
Kember, D., Leung, D.Y.P, Kwan K.P (2002). Does the use of student feedback questionnaires improve the quality of the overall quality of teaching?, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 5, 411-425.
Kelly, M. (2012). Student Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness: Considerations for Ontario Universities. Retrieved on 20 of April 2020 from https://cou.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Academic-Colleagues-Paper-Student-Evaluations-of-Teaching-Effectiveness.pdf
Malini, E., Deepak, T.J., Kannan, P., Venishri, P. (2017) Outcome-based personalised learning measurement tool for engineering education at INTI International University - INTI OBE tool (IOBET). In International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 2017 Vol.27 No.4, pp.287 - 302
Morley, D. (2014). Assessing the reliability of student evaluations of teaching: choosing the right coefficient. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(2), 127-139.
Richardson, John T. E. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: a review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher EducationVol. 30, No. 4, August 2005, pp. 387–415
Tucker, B. (2014). Student evaluation surveys: anonymous comments that offend or are unprofessional. Higher education, 68(3), 347-358.
Sanal, I. (2018) A review on student-centred higher education in civil engineering: evaluation of student perceptions. In International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 2018 Vol.28 No.2, pp.205 - 217
Sankaran, M., Mohanty, S. (2018) Student perception on achieved graduate attributes and learning experiences: a study on undergraduate engineering students of India. In International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 2018 Vol.28 No.1, pp.77 - 98
Shirbagi, N. (2015). Iranian university teachers' and students' views on effectiveness of students' evaluation of teaching. The quality of higher education, (8), 118-131.
Schulz, J., Sud, G., Crowe, B. Lessons from the Field: THE ROLE OF STUDENT SURVEYS IN TEACHER EVALUATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Bellwether Education Partners. May 2014.
Wang, Y. (2020) A comprehensive evaluation system of teaching quality based on big data architecture. In International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 2020 Vol.30 No.2, pp.176 - 189