[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-598685-105":59,"doc-detail-598685-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","developing-and-validating-an-instrument-for-student-ratings-of-teaching","Developing and Validating an Instrument for Student Ratings of Teaching","","Developing and Validating an Instrument for Student Ratings of Teaching describes a faculty-led process at Thompson Rivers University to create a new student ratings survey. Initiated in 2007 and approved in February 2011, the survey uses teaching dimensions linked to student achievement, remains learner-centred and pedagogically neutral, and includes 40 items: background statements, Likert-scale ratings, and open-ended questions. The work emphasizes collaborative development, ethics approval, focus groups, field testing, and quantitative analyses supporting high inter-rater reliability.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/developing-and-validating-an-instrument-for-student-ratings-of-teaching/598685/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/developing-and-validating-an-instrument-for-student-ratings-of-teaching/598685.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"awa","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-31","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Why did Thompson Rivers University need a new student ratings of teaching survey?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The Faculty of Science found the existing survey did not meet needs due to concerns about specific items, misalignment with recommended literature practices, and the lack of proper validity and reliability assessment.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How was the new survey developed between 2007 and 2011?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The process combined a collaborative approach using focus groups and Faculty Council presentations, ethics approval, drafting learner-centred statements, modifying items from feedback, field testing with online completion, and conducting quantitative statistical analyses.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What does the final survey include and how are responses measured?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The final instrument contains 40 items: eight statements on student background, 32 items rated on a six-point Likert scale, and four open-ended questions, with an additional “Not Applicable” response option during the draft analysis.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},598685,1792161644,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":44,"language":139,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144},3985747858093,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_3d24733baf745e90a7e4bdd5f77d97b2","24  \nDeveloping and Validating an Instrument for Student Ratings of Teaching  \nGary Hunt, Lyn Baldwin, Ernest Tsui, & Les Matthews  \nThompson Rivers University  \nIn May 2007, the Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Science established an ad hoc subcommittee to develop a new student ratings of teaching survey. The final survey, approved by the Faculty in February 2011, includes statements categorized in the dimensions of teaching shown in previous studies to be correlated with student achievement. The survey is learner-centred, discipline and pedagogically neutral, and includes only items that can be reasonably evaluated by students. The survey consists of 40 items including eight statements of student background information, 32 statements to rate on a six-point Likert scale, and four open-ended questions. We demonstrated that a faculty group with no formal training in survey design and informed by the literature, can, in collaboration with faculty, develop a survey established as having a high degree of inter-rater reliability.  \nIntroduction  \nA t Thompson Rivers University (TRU), student  \nratings of teaching are obligatory for new faculty and are mandated components of promotion and tenure packages. In 2007, the Faculty of Science determined that our existing survey was not meeting our needs fora number of reasons: faculty expressed a wide range of concerns about specific items, it was not consistent with recommended practices in the current literature, and it had never been properly assessed for validity and reliability. The need for a new student ratings of teaching form can be met through one of several ways including modifying an existing form or the purchase of a commercial product. Following a review of several  \nsurveys from other institutions and commercial products, we concluded that the best solution to meet the needs within the TRU Faculty of Science was to develop our own survey. The survey resulting from this work is included in the Appendix.  \nWhile it is recognized that student ratings of instruction are controversial and best used in combination with other forms of evidence (e.g., peer-observation and dossiers), they remain widely used in evaluating teaching and provide the best option for gathering quantifiable and comparable data (Abrami, 2001) . In our Faculty of Science, student ratings of teaching remain controversial among some members yet play important roles informative and summative evaluations. Our intent was to develop a ratings survey that supported the mission of our University and met with faculty approval.  \nMethodology  \nTwo primary goals underlined our approach to developing a new student ratings survey. First, we wanted our process to be collaborative, gathering input and approval through focus groups and presentations to our Science Faculty Council. Second, we wanted to employ the recommended practices as outlined in Berk (2006) and Gravestock and Gregor-Greenleaf (2008) . Below, we outline the steps we completed from 2007 to 2011.  \n1. Considering TRU’s mission statement, we identified teaching dimensions to be included in the survey.  \n2. We developed a schematic of our approach based on best practices, summarized the teaching dimensions planned for the survey, and presented this approach to Faculty Council for approval.  \n3. We compiled a list of potential statements for each teaching dimension drawn from published examples (Adams et al., 2008; Gravestock & Gregor-Greenleaf, 2008) . Once compiled, each statement was rewritten, if necessary, to be student-centered and evaluated against the criteria outlined by Berk (2006) . The criteria range from grammatical guidelines to rules regarding the relevance or applicability of each statement to potential student respondents.  \n4. We received ethics approval from the TRU Human Ethics Review Board.  \n5. We held focus groups with faculty and students. Both students and faculty in each focus group were asked individually to: 1) rank the importa","cbCaiuW55mH6x2fP","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuW55mH6x2fP","pdf",249726,"English","# Introduction\n# Methodology\n## Teaching dimensions and statement development\n# Results","[{\"question\":\"Why did Thompson Rivers University need a new student ratings of teaching survey?\",\"answer\":\"The Faculty of Science found the existing survey did not meet needs due to concerns about specific items, misalignment with recommended literature practices, and the lack of proper validity and reliability assessment.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the new survey developed between 2007 and 2011?\",\"answer\":\"The process combined a collaborative approach using focus groups and Faculty Council presentations, ethics approval, drafting learner-centred statements, modifying items from feedback, field testing with online completion, and conducting quantitative statistical analyses.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the final survey include and how are responses measured?\",\"answer\":\"The final instrument contains 40 items: eight statements on student background, 32 items rated on a six-point Likert scale, and four open-ended questions, with an additional “Not Applicable” response option during the draft analysis.\"}]","Developing and Validating an Instrument for Student Ratings of Teaching | PDF",1792087387,23]