What Every Economist Should Know about the Evaluation of Teaching: A Review of the Literature
Decades of research consistently show that student evaluations offer limited information on the effectiveness of teaching in economics. Such methods are at best valid for a relatively small set of factors that correlate with "good instruction." Even though some evidence exists that student evaluations are positively correlated with learning, it is clear that strong biases exist. Even though these limitations are well established in the literature and widely believed among faculty, the implementation of alternative or complimentary forms of assessment is notably lacking. The purpose of this paper is to review the current methods used to assess teaching. In the process, the paper proposes a research agenda for economists that aim to assess the reliability and validity of alternative processes such as peer review of teaching. The paper concludes with a number of recommendations for departments of economics that are serious about enhancing both formative as well as summative assessments of teaching.
|Date of creation:||01 Feb 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: 2700 Campus Box Elon College, NC 27244-2010|
Phone: +1(336) 278-6000
Fax: +1 (336) 278-5952
Web page: http://www.elon.edu/e-web/academics/business/economics/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- William E. Becker, 2000. "Teaching Economics in the 21st Century," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 109-119, Winter.
- Bruce A. Weinberg & Masanori Hashimoto & Belton M. Fleisher, 2009. "Evaluating Teaching in Higher Education," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 227-261, July.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:elo:wpaper:2010-02. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jim Barbour)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.