Why Student Ratings of Faculty Are Unethical

Author:

Close DarylORCID

Abstract

AbstractFor decades, student ratings of university faculty have been used by administrators in high stakes faculty employment decisions such as tenure, promotion, contract renewal and reappointment, and merit pay. However, virtually no attention has been paid to the ethical questions of using ratings in employment decisions. Instead, the ratings literature is generally limited to psychometric issues such as whether a given student ratings instrument exhibits the statistical properties of reliability and validity. There is no consensus understanding of teaching effectiveness, the very attribute that students are alleged to “evaluate.” What students are actually doing when they complete a ratings form—whether measuring, evaluating, reporting, judging, opining, etc.—remains unsettled in the ratings literature. If ratings are surveys of student satisfaction, they have no logical or ethical connection with teaching expertise. I argue that the administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions violates basic moral principles including nonmaleficence, beneficence, professional autonomy and clinical independence, and multiple aspects of justice including due care, truthfulness, and equitable treatment. These ethical violations rule against any administrative use of student ratings in faculty employment decisions, including the “use with caution in conjunction with other evaluative methods” deployment of student ratings. My conclusion is that such use should be immediately and universally terminated. Formative use of student questionnaires as part of ordinary instructional communication and feedback between instructor and students is a separate issue and outside of the scope of this paper.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference86 articles.

1. Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Cohen, P. A. (1990). Validity of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.82.2.219

2. Aleamoni, L. M. (1987). Typical faculty concerns about student evaluation of teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1987(31), 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219873105

3. Aleamoni, L. M. (1999). Student rating myths versus research facts from 1924 to 1998. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 13(2), 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008168421283

4. American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in. (2014). In Education (Ed.), Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Education Research Association. https://www.testingstandards.net/uploads/7/6/6/4/76643089/9780935302356.pdf

5. Anthology (2022). IDEA’s history. https://www.ideaedu.org/about-idea/ideas-history/

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3