IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v88y2007i3p868-881.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Leveling the Playing Field: Should Student Evaluation Scores be Adjusted?

Author

Listed:
  • Michael A. McPherson
  • R. Todd Jewell

Abstract

Objectives. Colleges and universities routinely use evaluation scores to assess the quality of an instructor's teaching for purposes of promotion and tenure and for merit‐raise allocations. This article attempts to identify the determinants of these scores, and to suggest ways that departments' numerical rankings of instructors might be adjusted. Method. This article applies a feasible generalized least squares model to a panel of data from master's‐level classes. Results. We find that instructors can “buy” better evaluation scores by inflating students' grade expectations. Also, the teaching experience of instructors has an impact on evaluation scores, but this effect is largely seen as an increase after tenure is granted. In addition, we find evidence of a bias against nonwhite faculty. Conclusion. Our results suggest that an adjustment to the usual departmental rankings may be in order.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael A. McPherson & R. Todd Jewell, 2007. "Leveling the Playing Field: Should Student Evaluation Scores be Adjusted?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 88(3), pages 868-881, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:88:y:2007:i:3:p:868-881
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00487.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00487.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00487.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Pearce, John A., 2017. "How employers can stanch the hemorrhaging of collegiate GPA credibility," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 35-43.
    2. Thomas J. Miles, 2015. "Do Attorney Surveys Measure Judicial Performance or Respondent Ideology? Evidence from Online Evaluations," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 44(S1), pages 231-267.
    3. MacLachlan, Anne J, 2017. "PRESERVATION OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION: Tacit Knowledge, Implicit Bias and University Faculty by Anne J. MacLachlan, UC Berkeley CSHE 1.17 (January 2017)," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt8kh0c74r, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.
    4. Joonmo Cho & Wonyoung Baek, 2019. "Identifying Factors Affecting the Quality of Teaching in Basic Science Education: Physics, Biological Sciences, Mathematics, and Chemistry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-18, July.
    5. R. Todd Jewell & Michael A. McPherson & Margie A. Tieslau, 2013. "Whose fault is it? Assigning blame for grade inflation in higher education," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(9), pages 1185-1200, March.
    6. Donghun Cho & Joonmo Cho, 2017. "Does More Accurate Knowledge of Course Grade Impact Teaching Evaluation?," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 12(2), pages 224-240, Spring.
    7. Robert L. Moore & Hanna Song & James D. Whitney, 2021. "Do Students Discriminate? Exploring Differentials by Race and Sex in Class Enrollments and Student Ratings of Instructors," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(1), pages 135-162, January.
    8. Tobias Wolbring, 2012. "Class Attendance and Students’ Evaluations of Teaching," Evaluation Review, , vol. 36(1), pages 72-96, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Lütkenhöner, Laura, 2013. "Können sich Hochschuldozenten bessere studentische Lehrevaluationen "erkaufen"?," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 7/2013, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    11. MacLachlan, Anne J., 2017. "PRESERVATION OF EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITY IN DOCTORAL EDUCATION: Tacit Knowledge, Implicit Bias and University Faculty by Anne J. MacLachlan, UC Berkeley CSHE 1.17 (January 2017)," University of California at Berkeley, Center for Studies in Higher Education qt5zv6c3nj, Center for Studies in Higher Education, UC Berkeley.

    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:bla:socsci:v:88:y:2007:i:3:p:868-881. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    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.