{"content":[{"text":"404","bbox":{"left":0.109535,"top":0.05391,"width":0.03528700000000001,"height":0.017304}},{"text":"K. Stark-Wroblewski et al.","bbox":{"left":0.166115,"top":0.05373,"width":0.23621800000000004,"height":0.017484}},{"text":"These issues leave faculty in a quandary as to how to convincingly demonstrate effec- \n tive teaching in preparation for promotion and tenure review. This paper will describe \n how pre–post measures of learning tailored to individual courses, when used to \n supplement data from SETs, may provide a partial solution. Results of a study \n examining the relations among student grades, learning and SETs provide further \n support for the notion that SETs and measures of learning assess distinct aspects of \n teaching effectiveness.","bbox":{"left":0.109535,"top":0.092213,"width":0.778897,"height":0.128257}},{"text":"Criticisms of the use of SETs","bbox":{"left":0.109535,"top":0.249217,"width":0.24577100000000002,"height":0.017483}},{"text":"Although SETs are widely used for both formative (i.e., to promote improvement in \n teaching) and summative (i.e., as a form of quality assurance) feedback, their use is \n not without controversy (see Greenwald, 1997; Marsh & Roche, 1997; Kulik, 2001; \n Olivares, 2003). In particular, concerns have been raised regarding the possible \n biasing effect of grade inflation (see Eiszler, 2002). In essence, it has been argued that \n faculty may be tempted to assign higher grades to students in exchange for higher \n (i.e., better) student evaluation ratings. Thus, grading leniency is seen as a contami- \n nant or biasing variable that spuriously inflates student ratings of teachers who assign \n higher grades. Olivares (2003) has even argued that, with the widespread use of \n SETs, ‘academic control and authority have been put in the hands of students’ \n (pp. 242–243), thereby resulting in an increase in consumer-oriented teaching and a \n decrease in student learning. \n Anthony Greenwald (1997), action editor on a current issues section of the \n American Psychologist devoted to the debate over validity concerns associated with the \n use of SETs, suggested that the commonly observed positive correlation between \n grades and student ratings, which usually ranges from .10 to .30 (Feldman, 1997), is \n a matter of discriminant (in)validity. After reviewing extensive research providing \n evidence for the convergent validity of SETs, he concluded that grading leniency \n remains a contaminant in the use of SETs as a way to assess teaching effectiveness. \n Likewise, after presenting five theories that might explain the grades-rating correla- \n tion, Greenwald and Gillmore (1997) concluded that the ‘leniency’ or ‘grade \n satisfaction’ theory, in which students assign high ratings in appreciation for lenient \n grading, best explains the patterns of relationships observed in prior research.","bbox":{"left":0.109533,"top":0.277136,"width":0.778915,"height":0.42412999999999995}},{"text":"Multiple audiences for SETs and uncertainty regarding how SETs are utilized","bbox":{"left":0.109533,"top":0.730013,"width":0.669849,"height":0.017483000000000026}},{"text":"As Spencer and Schmelkin (2002) have aptly pointed out, when it comes to the use \n of SETs, there are essentially three interested parties, faculty, students and adminis- \n trators. Based on their review of the literature pertaining to students’ perceptions of \n the use of SETs, they concluded that students are ‘not too optimistic about the over- \n all weight put by administrators and faculty on student opinion’ (p. 398). Results of \n their own study of student perspectives regarding SETs suggested that, although \n students believe SETs should be used in administrative decision-making (e.g., promo- \n tion and tenure decisions), students are generally pessimistic that this actually occurs.","bbox":{"left":0.109533,"top":0.757931,"width":0.77888,"height":0.14674900000000002}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}