This study from the United States Air Force Academy found that there is a trade-off between performance on the immediate test and deep understanding of the material. Student evaluation of teacher performance is correlated to how well they perform on the immediate test more than it is correlated to how well they developed a deep understanding of the material. In this way, student evaluation of a teacher can be inversely correlated to the quality of the education they receive.
Regardless of how these effects may operate, our results show that student evaluations reward professors who increase achievement in the contemporaneous course being taught, not those who increase deep learning. Using our various measures of teacher quality to rank-order teachers leads to profoundly different results. Since many U.S. colleges and universities use student evaluations as a measurement of teaching quality for academic promotion and tenure decisions, this finding draws into question the value and accuracy of this practice.
I think there’s a critical distinction to draw here. There are three possibilities that are being conflated in your comment.
Student evaluations correlate more strongly with test performance, and only weakly with deep understanding. (“Student evaluation of teacher performance is correlated to how well they perform on the immediate test more than it is correlated to how well they developed a deep understanding of the material.”)
Student evaluations correlate with test performance, and are not correlated with deep understanding. (“student evaluations reward professors who increase achievement in the contemporaneous course being taught, not those who increase deep learning.”)
Student evaluations correlate with test performance, and are inversely correlated with deep understanding—i.e. giving student evaluations coincides with more shallow understanding.(“In this way, student evaluation of a teacher can be inversely correlated to the quality of the education they receive.”)
Only if (3) is true does correlation suggest that student evaluations may be harmful to learning.
If (2) is true, student evaluations seem less attractive, but maybe restructuring them would be an experiment worth trying.
If (1) is true, then there’s a stronger case for student evaluations and seeing if we can get a better correlation with learning out of them.
This study from the United States Air Force Academy found that there is a trade-off between performance on the immediate test and deep understanding of the material. Student evaluation of teacher performance is correlated to how well they perform on the immediate test more than it is correlated to how well they developed a deep understanding of the material. In this way, student evaluation of a teacher can be inversely correlated to the quality of the education they receive.
I think there’s a critical distinction to draw here. There are three possibilities that are being conflated in your comment.
Student evaluations correlate more strongly with test performance, and only weakly with deep understanding. (“Student evaluation of teacher performance is correlated to how well they perform on the immediate test more than it is correlated to how well they developed a deep understanding of the material.”)
Student evaluations correlate with test performance, and are not correlated with deep understanding. (“student evaluations reward professors who increase achievement in the contemporaneous course being taught, not those who increase deep learning.”)
Student evaluations correlate with test performance, and are inversely correlated with deep understanding—i.e. giving student evaluations coincides with more shallow understanding. (“In this way, student evaluation of a teacher can be inversely correlated to the quality of the education they receive.”)
Only if (3) is true does correlation suggest that student evaluations may be harmful to learning.
If (2) is true, student evaluations seem less attractive, but maybe restructuring them would be an experiment worth trying.
If (1) is true, then there’s a stronger case for student evaluations and seeing if we can get a better correlation with learning out of them.