IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/umiodp/72013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Können sich Hochschuldozenten bessere studentische Lehrevaluationen "erkaufen"?

Author

Listed:
  • Lütkenhöner, Laura

Abstract

In dieser Studie werden 128 Fälle betrachtet, in denen dieselben Studenten eine Vorlesung zu zwei verschiedenen Zeitpunkten evaluiert haben. Die Besonderheit dabei ist, dass ausschließlich Fälle berücksichtigt werden, in denen die zum Zeitpunkt der Evaluation erwartete oder bereits erhaltene Note zum späteren Zeitpunkt besser ist als zum früheren Zeitpunkt. Die Ergebnisse lassen darauf schließen, dass sich (vielfach beobachtete) Zusammenhänge zwischen Noten und Evaluationsergebnissen nicht allein mit dem Effektive-Lehre-Ansatz und/ oder dem Studenten-Charakteristika-Ansatz erklären lassen. Vielmehr scheinen Dozenten durchaus die Möglichkeit zu haben, bessere Lehrbewertungen zu erkaufen. Binäre logistische Regressionen zeigen aber auch, dass die Wahrscheinlichkeit, mit der ein Student auf eine Notenverbesserung mit einer besseren Lehrbewertungen reagiert, vom Geschlecht und vom Elternhaus sowie von einer bereits absolvierten Ausbildung beeinflusst wird. In Bezug auf die Wahrscheinlichkeit für eine solche Reaktion bestehen auch signifikante Unterschiede zwischen verschiedenen Dozenten.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:umiodp:72013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/80339/1/756525616.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Michael A. McPherson, 2006. "Determinants of How Students Evaluate Teachers," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(1), pages 3-20, January.
    3. Krautmann, Anthony C. & Sander, William, 1999. "Grades and student evaluations of teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 59-63, February.
    4. Selten, Reinhard & Ockenfels, Axel, 1998. "An experimental solidarity game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 517-539, March.
    5. Frank, Bjorn & Schulze, Gunther G., 2000. "Does economics make citizens corrupt?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 101-113, September.
    6. John R. Carter & Michael D. Irons, 1991. "Are Economists Different, and If So, Why?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 5(2), pages 171-177, Spring.
    7. Michael A McPherson & R Todd Jewell & Myungsup Kim, 2009. "What Determines Student Evaluation Scores? A Random Effects Analysis of Undergraduate Economics Classes," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 35(1), pages 37-51.
    8. Paul Isely & Harinder Singh, 2005. "Do Higher Grades Lead to Favorable Student Evaluations?," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(1), pages 29-42, January.
    9. Ewing, Andrew M., 2012. "Estimating the impact of relative expected grade on student evaluations of teachers," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 141-154.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A20 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - General
    • A22 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics - - - Undergraduate
    • C23 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Models with Panel Data; Spatio-temporal Models
    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • I23 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Higher Education; Research Institutions

    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:zbw:umiodp:72013. 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: (ZBW - German National Library of Economics). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ilmuede.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.