Gump in 2004 identified a positive significant relationship between awareness of daily class objectives and ratings of the instructor's overall teaching effectiveness. The idea that rating of teaching effectiveness can be related to other nonteaching related attributes of the lecturer was further examined. Correlations based on ratings of teaching effectiveness from 453 undergraduate students (M = 21 yr., SD = 5.5; 73% women) showed that another nonteaching related variable, namely, how funny the instructor was perceived, was significantly related to indicators of teaching effectiveness.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramiP. C.d'ApolloniaS.RosenfieldS. (1997) The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In PerryR. P.SmartJ. C. (Eds.), Effective teaching in higher education: Research and practice. New York: Agathon Press. Pp. 321–367.
2.
FeldmanK. A. (1976) Grades and college students' evaluations of their courses and teachers. Research in Higher Education, 18, 3–124.
3.
GreenwaldA. G.GillmoreG. M. (1997) Grading leniency is a removable contaminant of student ratings. American Psychologist, 52, 1209–1217.
4.
GumpS. E. (2004) Daily class objectives and instructor's effectiveness as perceived by students. Psychological Reports, 94, 1250–1252.
5.
MarshH. W. (1987) Students' evaluations of university teaching: Research findings, methodological issues, and directions for future research. International Journal of Educational Research, 11, 253–388.
6.
MarshH. W.RocheL. A. (1997) Making students' evaluations of teaching effectiveness effective. American Psychologist, 52, 1187–1197.
7.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (1997) Subject review handbook: October 1998 to September 2000. (QAA 1/97) London: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education.
8.
ShevlinM.BanyardP.DaviesM. D.GriffithsM. (2000) The validity of student evaluation of teaching in higher education: Love me, love my lectures?Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 25, 397–405.
