FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W56534909> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W56534909 endingPage "69" @default.
• W56534909 startingPage "56" @default.
• W56534909 abstract "This review presents an overview of selected articles on the leniency hypothesis: the idea that students give higher evaluations to who grade more leniently. Such articles comprise small subset of the voluminous research on student evaluations of teaching (SETs). In this diverse literature, research methods and aims have frequently affected the outcomes and conclusions, since SETs are typically context-specific instruments whose results, in isolated instances, do not generalize well. Thus this review questions the very generalizability of the massive and often contradictory SET-related literature on the leniency hypothesis and argues that future research must be designed and carried out in light of the implicit problems existing in the majority of earlier studies. Background and Introduction to the Review Although formal instructor evaluations at the postsecondary level are also carried out by peers, administrators, and the individual themselves (as self-evaluations) (McGee, 199S), evaluations by students are the most ubiquitous. This ubiquity has resulted, according to Marsh (1984, p. 749), in student evaluations of teaching effectiveness being probably . . . the most thoroughly studied of all forms of personnel evaluation, and one of the best in terms of being supported by empirical research. Indeed, Centra (2003) reported that query to the ERIC database returned references to over 2,000 studies on student evaluations of teaching (SETs). Although dozens of new studies continue to inundate the literature every year, does the perennial popularity of this topic necessarily imply that all the scholarship and energy devoted to understanding student evaluations better is well articulated, well grounded, and worthwhile? Considering mis question from an historical perspective, for example, Marsh and Dunkin (1992) argued that numerous methodologically unsound studies on SETs were published in the 1970s, period which Centra (1993, p. 9) termed the golden age of research on student Marsh and Roche (1997, p. 1190) virtually condemned much of the literature base as nearly worthless: The voluminous literature on potential biases in· SETs is frequently atheoretical, methodologically flawed, and not based on well-articulated operational definitions of bias, thus continuing to fuel (and be fueled or fooled by) SET myths. This review considers one small sub-theme in the literature related to student evaluations of teaching effectiveness: the so-called leniency hypothesis, which attests mat instructors with more lenient grading standards receive more favourable (Wachtel, 1998, p. 200). Underscoring mis hypothesis is the notion mat can buy better evaluations by giving out higher grades (Nimmer & Stone, 1991, p. 1%). That notion, in turn, stems from what Petress (19%, p. 387) has termed the quasi economic model of education, wherein students are viewed as customers, consumers, or clients (see, for example, Bowen, 2001; Colby, Ehrlich, Beaumont, Rosner, & Stephens, 2000; Dowd, 2003; Eiszler, 2002; Muller, 1994; Stimpson, 2004). Interestingly, such conception is not new. In his 1888 inaugural address, Francis L. Patton, the twelfth president of the College of New Jersey (fate* Princeton University), remarked that college administration is business in which Trustees are partners, professors the salesmen and students the customers (Wertenbaker, 1946, p. 347). According to mis rhetoric, then, which ignores pedagogic reality (Brookfield, 1995, p. 21), SETs have become a form of customer satisfaction survey (Eiszler, p. 499). And in (common) situations where SET ratings are used by administrators to determine merit raises or to support promotion and tenure decisions, faculty are, justifiably, quite concerned about their teaching evaluations. Uses, Methods, and Analyses of Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness Almost as soon as student evaluation procedures were introduced at several major universities in the U. …" @default.
• W56534909 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W56534909 creator A5069513876 @default.
• W56534909 date "2007-03-01" @default.
• W56534909 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W56534909 title "Student Evaluations of Teaching Effectiveness and the Leniency Hypothesis: A Literature Review." @default.
• W56534909 cites W1486592139 @default.
• W56534909 cites W1493735179 @default.
• W56534909 cites W1581321454 @default.
• W56534909 cites W181901588 @default.
• W56534909 cites W1964661866 @default.
• W56534909 cites W1967103901 @default.
• W56534909 cites W1992680218 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2005602477 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2015092539 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2019761910 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2033478246 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2041379578 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2048575283 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2050424588 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2060523433 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2094419105 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2097929748 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2129986215 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2140480569 @default.
• W56534909 cites W2477352953 @default.
• W56534909 cites W324366274 @default.
• W56534909 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W56534909 type Work @default.
• W56534909 sameAs 56534909 @default.
• W56534909 citedByCount "15" @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092012 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092013 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092014 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092015 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092016 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092017 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092018 @default.
• W56534909 countsByYear W565349092019 @default.
• W56534909 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W56534909 hasAuthorship W56534909A5069513876 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C120936955 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C138496976 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C177264268 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C27158222 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C2780586970 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W56534909 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C111472728 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C120936955 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C138496976 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C138885662 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C145420912 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C151730666 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C15744967 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C177264268 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C17744445 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C199360897 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C199539241 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C27158222 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C2778061430 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C2779343474 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C2780586970 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C41008148 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C77805123 @default.
• W56534909 hasConceptScore W56534909C86803240 @default.
• W56534909 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W56534909 hasLocation W565349091 @default.
• W56534909 hasOpenAccess W56534909 @default.
• W56534909 hasPrimaryLocation W565349091 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W1967103901 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W1970090653 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W1982678925 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W1992680218 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2005602477 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2015092539 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2041379578 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2051441056 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2054365601 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2059105943 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2061546712 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2071016044 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2116095922 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2127136536 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2140480569 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2142699937 @default.
• W56534909 hasRelatedWork W2147907578 @default.

• next