The purpose of this study is to analyze (1) the studies on students` evaluation of university teaching and (2) the result of implementing students` evalution in order to improve the instructional method at the university. The analyzed contents of the...
The purpose of this study is to analyze (1) the studies on students` evaluation of university teaching and (2) the result of implementing students` evalution in order to improve the instructional method at the university. The analyzed contents of the studies are (1) the dimensions of the students` evaluation, (2) the validity of the students` evaluation, (3) the reliability of the students` evaluation, and (4) the utility and the usefulness of the students` evaluation In order to analyze the result of inplementing students` evaluation, SEEQ(the Student Evaluation of Educational Quality) made by H. W. Marsh, was administered to 853 students (24 classes). The results of the studies of the student ratingts are as follows; (1) Student rating forms are multidimensional, i.e., that they measure several different aspect of teaching. Therefore no single student rating item, nor set of related items, will be useful for all purposes. (2) The validity of students evaluation can be found from the evidence of correlation the exam. grade and various students ration items, correlation berween the instructor`s self ratings and the students` ratings, and the correlation between the trained observers and the students` ratings. (3) The reliability of students` ratings is generally accepted in terms of consistency, stability and generalizability. But reliability veries depending upon the number of raters, i.e., the more raters, the more reliable. (4) There are two kinds of bariables: the one has relationship with students` ratings, and the other has no relationship with them. The former veriables are (a) instructors` rank and expressiveness, (b) students` motivation and expected frades, (c) course level, academic field and workload, and (d) administrative variables. The latter variables are (a) instructor`s age, teaching experience, gender, race, personality and research productivity, (b) student`s age, gender, level(grade), GPA and personality. The former variables require control, but the latter variables not, when results of student ratings are analyzed. The analyses of the implementation (1) Students show positive responses to the dimension of learning value, enthusiasm, breadth of coverage and assignment, but show negative response to the dimension of group interaction, exams/grades and individual rapport. (2) The coefficient of Cronbach`s a to the 22 items of the instrument was .85, so that it can be said that it is a reliable one for the Korean students. (3) The correlations among the dimensions are from .10 to .44 and most of them are statistically significant. This result shows that any dimension can`t be neglect when the teaching effectiveness of the instruction is taken into consideration. (4) The responses of student ratings and (a) the overall course, (b) the overall teacher and the teaching load are significantly related by the test of variabce, It can be said that the instrument SEEQ is valid when it is administered to Korean students. (5) The responses of student ratings of same subjects by the same teacher were not statistically significant, but those of different subject by the same teacher were statistically significant except one case. (6) The average score of the student ratings was increased by 9.66 from 75.13 of the first semester to 84.79 of the second semester after the feedback of student ratings. And the average difference was statistically significant and the level of less than 1% by the test of variance. From the results of the analysis, the following can be suggested for impleminting the system of the students ratings of university teaching in Korea. (1) It is necessary for the faculties to implement the student ratings of university teaching in order to improve the quality of the instruction, and the student ratings is found to be valid and reliable for teaching effectiveness. (2) The committee of student ratings should be established for measuring, interpreting and counselling the