[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-596319-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-596319-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","the-canadian-journal-for-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning-volume-14-issue-1-article-10-evaluating-and-improving-the-formative-use-of-student-evaluations-of-teaching","The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning - Volume 14 - Issue 1 - Article 10 - Evaluating and Improving the Formative Use of Student Evaluations of Teaching","","Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) are a ubiquitous tool in higher education. Although they are not an effective method for assessing teaching ability, they can support formative teaching development across an academic career. The study characterizes instructors’ current formative use of SETs and their attitudes, covering STEM and non-STEM fields. Results show that tenured instructors use SETs for formative development more than untenured instructors, while non-STEM instructors report more negative associations than STEM instructors.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-canadian-journal-for-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning-volume-14-issue-1-article-10-evaluating-and-improving-the-formative-use-of-student-evaluations-of-teaching/596319/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-canadian-journal-for-the-scholarship-of-teaching-and-learning-volume-14-issue-1-article-10-evaluating-and-improving-the-formative-use-of-student-evaluations-of-teaching/596319.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Guten tag","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-01","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why are Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) used in higher education?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"SETs are widely used in higher education. While they are not effective for evaluating teaching ability, they can support formative teaching development over a career.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What differences did the study find between tenured and untenured instructors?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Tenured instructors used SETs for formative development more than untenured instructors.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How did attitudes toward SETs differ between STEM and non-STEM instructors?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Non-STEM instructors had more negative associations with SETs than STEM instructors.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},596319,1792121635,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":55,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},687212321768,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/a0010bdbe886d2fe77?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1789897067658708522","The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning  \n\n| Volume 14 | Issue 1 | Article 10 |\n| --- | --- |\n| Spring 05-31-2023\u003Cbr>Evaluating and Improving the Formative of Student Evaluations of Teaching\u003Cbr>Kamel Omer\u003Cbr>Western University, [komer@uwo.ca](komer@uwo.ca)[ ](komer@uwo.ca)Shoshanah Jacobs\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [sjacob04@uoguelph.ca](sjacob04@uoguelph.ca)[ ](sjacob04@uoguelph.ca)Karl Cottenie\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [cottenie@uoguelph.ca](cottenie@uoguelph.ca)[ ](cottenie@uoguelph.ca)Bill Bettger\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [wbettger@uoguelph.ca](wbettger@uoguelph.ca)[ ](wbettger@uoguelph.ca)John Dawson\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [jdawso01@uoguelph.ca](jdawso01@uoguelph.ca)[ ](jdawso01@uoguelph.ca)Steffen Graether\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [graether@uoguelph.ca](graether@uoguelph.ca)[ ](graether@uoguelph.ca)Coral Murrant\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [cmurrant@uoguelph.ca](cmurrant@uoguelph.ca)[ ](cmurrant@uoguelph.ca)John Zettel\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [jzettel@uoguelph.ca](jzettel@uoguelph.ca)[ ](jzettel@uoguelph.ca)Genevieve Newton\u003Cbr>University of Guelph, [newton@uoguelph.ca](newton@uoguelph.ca)\u003Cbr>Follow this and additional works at: [https://www.cjsotl-rcacea.ca](https://www.cjsotl-rcacea.ca)\u003Cbr>[https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.1.10960](https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.1.10960) | Use |\n\nRecommended Citation  \nOmer, K., Jacobs, S., Cottenie, K., Bettger, B., Dawson, J., Graether, S., Murrant, C., Zettel, J., & Newton, G. (2023). Evaluating and improving the formative use of student evaluations of teaching. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1). [https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.1.10960](https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotlrcacea.2023.1.10960)  \nEvaluating and Improving the Formative Use of Student Evaluations of Teaching  \nAbstract  \nStudent Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) are a ubiquitous tool in higher education. Though they are not effective means of evaluating teaching ability, they are useful in formative teaching development of a teaching career. We characterise the current formative use of and attitudes towards SETs by instructors across all disciplines (STEM and non-STEM) . We found that tenured instructors used SETs for formative development more than untenured, and that non-STEM instructors had more negative associations with SETs than STEM instructors. Based upon these data, we make recommendations toredesign the SET instrument and change the way in which the data are used to support formative teaching development.  \nLes évaluations de l’enseignement par les étudiants et les étudiantes sont un outil omniprésent dans l’enseignement supérieur. Bien qu’elles ne soient pas un moyen efficace d’évaluer l’aptitude à enseigner, elles sont utiles pour le développement de l’enseignement formatif au sein d’une carrièred’enseignant. Nous caractérisons l’emploi formatif actuel des évaluations de l’enseignement par les étudiants et les étudiantes, ainsi que les attitudes envers ces évaluations par les instructeurs et les instructrices, dans toutes les disciplines (STEM et autres que STEM) . Nous avons constaté que les instructeurs et les instructrices qui avaient la permanence utilisaient les évaluations del’enseignement par les étudiants et les étudiantes pour le développement formatif davantage que nele faisaient les instructeurs et les instructrices n’ayant pas la permanence, et que les instructeurs et les instructrices qui enseignaient des cours autres que STEM avaient davantage d’associations négatives par rapport à ces évaluations que les instructeurs et les instructrices de cours STEM. Sur la base de ces données, nous recommandons de redéfinir les évaluations de l’enseignement par les étudiants et les étudiantes et de changer la manière dont ces données sont employées pour soutenir le développement d’un enseignement formatif.  \nKeywords  \nstudent evaluations of teaching, formative teaching development; évaluations de l’enseignement par les étud","cbCaijnat6jxXjSa","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaijnat6jxXjSa","pdf",509968,35,"English","# Abstract\n## Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) as a formative tool\n## Disciplinary differences (STEM vs non-STEM)\n## Recommendations for redesigning SET use","[{\"question\":\"Why are Student Evaluations of Teaching (SETs) used in higher education?\",\"answer\":\"SETs are widely used in higher education. While they are not effective for evaluating teaching ability, they can support formative teaching development over a career.\"},{\"question\":\"What differences did the study find between tenured and untenured instructors?\",\"answer\":\"Tenured instructors used SETs for formative development more than untenured instructors.\"},{\"question\":\"How did attitudes toward SETs differ between STEM and non-STEM instructors?\",\"answer\":\"Non-STEM instructors had more negative associations with SETs than STEM instructors.\"}]","The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning - Volume 14 - Issue 1 - Article 10 - Evaluating and Improving the Formative Use of Student Evaluations of Teaching | PDF",1792082856,88]