IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jeduce/v42y2011i1p19-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Whose Opinion Is It Anyway? Determinants of Participation in Student Evaluation of Teaching

Author

Listed:
  • Samer Kherfi

Abstract

Using data that identify the respondents to student evaluation of teaching (SET), the author finds that respondents and nonrespondents are different along several characteristics. Students respond more if they are first-term freshmen, or if the course is a major requirement. Men, students with light course loads, and students with low cumulative grade point average or low course grade are less likely to evaluate the course and the instructor. A matched-pairs test that effectively eliminates class- and instructor-invariant student characteristics confirms that students who do better in a course are more likely to participate in SET. In addition, students who are more likely to have strong opinions, identified by early participation, hold, on average, positive views toward the course. These results do not support the idea that SET attracts disproportionally more unhappy students. Given the widely documented positive correlation between grades and ratings, these findings suggest that SET ratings can be biased upward.

Suggested Citation

  • Samer Kherfi, 2011. "Whose Opinion Is It Anyway? Determinants of Participation in Student Evaluation of Teaching," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(1), pages 19-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:42:y:2011:i:1:p:19-30
    DOI: 10.1080/00220485.2011.536487
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220485.2011.536487
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220485.2011.536487?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Neckermann, Susanne & Turmunkh, Uyanga & van Dolder, Dennie & Wang, Tong V., 2022. "Nudging student participation in online evaluations of teaching: Evidence from a field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    2. Angelo Antoci & Irene Brunetti & Pierluigi Sacco & Mauro Sodini, 2021. "Student evaluation of teaching, social influence dynamics, and teachers’ choices: An evolutionary model," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 325-348, January.
    3. Edgar Treischl & Tobias Wolbring, 2017. "The Causal Effect of Survey Mode on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching: Empirical Evidence from Three Field Experiments," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(8), pages 904-921, December.
    4. Cannon, Edmund & Cipriani, Giam Pietro, 2021. "Gender Differences in Student Evaluations of Teaching: Identification and Consequences," IZA Discussion Papers 14387, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Ale J. Hejase & Hussin J. Hejase & Rana S. Al Kaakour, 2014. "The Impact of Students’ Characteristics on their Perceptions of the Evaluation of Teaching Process," International Journal of Management Sciences, Research Academy of Social Sciences, vol. 4(2), pages 90-105.
    6. Amalia Vanacore & Maria Sole Pellegrino, 2019. "How Reliable are Students’ Evaluations of Teaching (SETs)? A Study to Test Student’s Reproducibility and Repeatability," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(1), pages 77-89, November.
    7. Maarten Goos & Anna Salomons, 2017. "Measuring teaching quality in higher education: assessing selection bias in course evaluations," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 58(4), pages 341-364, June.

    More about this item

    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:taf:jeduce:v:42:y:2011:i:1:p:19-30. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20 .

    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.