Search

Several times each year the teaching performance of academics at higher education institutions are evaluated through anonymous, online Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET) surveys. Universities use SET surveys to inform decisions about staff promotion and tenure. But low student participation levels make the surveys impractical for this use. This scoping review aims to explore student motivations, perceptions, and opinions of SET survey completion. Five EBSCO® databases were searched using key words: “student evaluation of teaching” OR “student evaluation*” OR “student rating*” OR “student satisfaction” OR “teach* evaluation” OR “teach* effective*” OR “teach* performance OR “student feedback*” OR “student survey” AND “higher*education” OR university OR college OR tertiary. Thematic analysis of a meta-synthesis of qualitative findings derived from 21 papers identified five themes: (i) The value students’ place on SET, (ii) the knowledge that SET responses are acted upon to improve teaching, (iii) assurance of survey confidentiality and anonymity, (iv) incentives for completing SET, and (v) survey design and timing of survey release. Perceptions, knowledge, and attitudes about the value of SET are essential factors in motivating students to engage and complete SETs, particularly if surveys are easy to interpret, time for completion is incentivised, and responses are valued.

When instructors assess students’ laboratory reports to appraise the underlying scientific reasoning, they disclose their own concerns, epistemological assumptions and beliefs about science. The analysis of such assessments (i.e. rubric-centred scores and corresponding justificatory comments) offer a wealth of insights that can be re-engaged in further improvements of the assessment tool and procedure, and in developments in formative assessment more generally. Such insights include concerns exceeding the rubric’s descriptions (about meaningfulness, exhaustiveness, implicitness, connectivity, true inquiry, relevance), while differences among assessors are exposed (regarding epistemic values, approaches to scoring, sensitivity). This contribution is part of a broader effort to promote students’ conducive scientific thinking and deep-learning in science and engineering education. It addresses the question(s): what does the assessors’ reasoning tell us about the ways in which formative assessment is conducted, and could ideally be? The empirical investigation connects to existing knowledge, and discusses issues of representativeness and granularity in formative assessment. The paper elaborates on the design and use of the assessment tool, and presents evidence supporting context-bound recommendations and general conclusions. It is proposed that developments in formative assessment will benefit from reconceptualisation of assessment criteria, as the result of a co-design activity that engages with the assessors’ epistemological concerns.