IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpgt/0502007.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are Student Ratings of Instruction Useful?

Author

Listed:
  • J.S. Armstrong

    (The Wharton School)

Abstract

Despite the lead article^Rs title ^SValidity Concerns and Usefulness of Student Ratings of Instruction^T (Greenwald 1997) in the American Psychologist^R^Rs special section on teacher ratings, the papers did not provide direct evidence on ^Susefulness.^T There is no evidence that the use of teacher ratings improves learning in the long run. The papers do not show that the effects would improve the allocation of effort between teaching and research, or that the quality of the educational experience will be better, or that students and faculty will be happier. Given the evidence to date, the case for student ratings is weak. I raise some questions about usefulness, with a particular emphasis on the ratings^R effects on learning.

Suggested Citation

  • J.S. Armstrong, 2005. "Are Student Ratings of Instruction Useful?," General Economics and Teaching 0502007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502007
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/get/papers/0502/0502007.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Business School Prestige ^V Research versus Teaching," General Economics and Teaching 0502009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Attiyeh, Richard & Lumsden, Keith G, 1972. "Some Modern Myths in Teaching Economics: The U. K. Experience," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 429-433, May.
    3. J. Scott Armstrong, 1983. "The Ombudsman: Learner Responsibility in Management Education, or Ventures into Forbidden Research," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 13(2), pages 26-38, April.
    4. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Learner Responsibility in Management Education, or Ventures into Forbidden Research (with Comments)," General Economics and Teaching 0502012, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. J.S. Armstrong, 2005. "Improving Learning at Universities: Who is Responsible?," General Economics and Teaching 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. JS Armstrong, 2004. "The Case for Minimum Teaching Standards," General Economics and Teaching 0412019, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "The Devil s Advocate Responds to an MBA Student s Claim that Research Harms Learning," General Economics and Teaching 0502008, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. J.S. Armstrong, 2005. "Improving Learning at Universities: Who is Responsible?," General Economics and Teaching 0502006, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. J. S. Armstrong, 2005. "Business School Prestige ^V Research versus Teaching," General Economics and Teaching 0502009, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2012. "Natural Learning in Higher Education," MPRA Paper 37648, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. JS Armstrong, 2005. "Quality Control Versus Innovation in Research on Marketing," General Economics and Teaching 0502050, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Would Mandatory Attendance Be Effective for Economics Classes?," General Economics and Teaching 0412018, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Julia Grant & Timothy Fogarty, 1998. "Faculty evaluation as a social dilemma: a game theoretic approach," Accounting Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(3), pages 225-248.
    9. Richard F. Elmore & Michael O'Hare, 1991. "Formal models and government: Teaching to do," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(3), pages 519-541.
    10. JS Armstrong, 2004. "Teacher vs. Learner Responsibility in Management Education," General Economics and Teaching 0412020, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    learning; universities;

    JEL classification:

    • A - General Economics and Teaching

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpgt:0502007. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.