Student Feedback

Student feedback should primarily be used to support lecturers in their professional learning and growth.

The Purpose of Student Feedback

Student feedback should primarily be used to support lecturers in their professional learning and growth. Secondary to this, student feedback can also be used as part of performance appraisal processes, but never as the single source of information for evaluating teaching.

Student feedback is a useful source of information

The Value Of Student Feedback

Student feedback is widely accepted as a useful source of information about the quality of teaching and as a potential professional learning tool to enhance teaching. As part of the teaching and learning process, student feedback can:


Clarification Of Terminology


Rigorous analysis, performed by experts, of completed or ongoing activities that determine or support, amongst others effectiveness and efficiency.  E.g. external evaluation of departments.

Student Feedback

(Helpful) information or criticism to the lecturer that is given by the student. This information can provide direction about what can be done to improve the effectiveness of teaching, in the opinion of the student. It is given by students and is usually anonymous. At SU, for example, student feedback is collected via the electronic Student Feedback system platform, and in informal feedback such as Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs).


Formative (Student) Feedback

Student feedback that is obtained during the teaching process within the module or programme. This information can help lecturers to refine the module or adjust their teaching during the course of the module and thus improve the learning experience of the current students. Various CATs can be used for this purpose.

Summative (Student) Feedback

Student feedback that is obtained upon completion of the teaching process within the module or programme. These questionnaires are normally distributed via the institutional student feedback system.


Challenging Misconceptions

Faculty members often reveal feelings of frustration and distrust towards the use of student feedback as part of the teaching and learning process. Despite the divergent debates around the potential use of student feedback and how it influences university teaching practice, the collection of student feedback has however become common practice in many universities across the world (Keane & Labhrainn, 2005; Richardson, 2005; Alderman, Towers & Bannah, 2012; Benton & Ryalls, 2016). Although some faculty frustration about the misuse of student feedback may be valid, much of the typical arguments against student feedback have been refuted by research (Benton & Ryalls, IDEA Centre, 2016):

“Tough” Demanding Teachers Receive Lower Student Feedback rates

The cynical assumptions underpinning these types of assertions are that students are interested only in grades and do not want to be challenged in their educations. But in a study involving over 50,000 classes across eight academic disciplines, Centra (2003) found that the grade students expected to earn was only weakly related to student feedback. Others have similarly reported low, positive correlations (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Centra, 2003; Feldman, 1976; Howard & Maxwell, 1980, 1982; Marsh & Dunkin, 1997; Marsh & Roche, 2000). Even this low positive correlation between grades and ratings may not necessarily indicate that lecturers are lowering standards to get higher ratings. It could well indicate that students who learn more earn higher grades and assign higher ratings, which supports the validity of student feedback. A third possibility is that student characteristics, such as motivation and interest in the subject matter, could lead to greater learning and, therefore, higher grades and student ratings (McKeachie, 1997). Moreover, research conducted in nearly 500,000 classes across more than 300 institutions revealed that lecturers are more likely to earn high student feedback when their students say their teacher challenged them and had high achievement standards (Benton, Guo, Li, & Gross, 2013).

Students are not Qualified to Judge Teaching Effectiveness

Arguing that the worst or most lenient teachers receive the highest ratings rests upon another fraudulent assumption: students are not qualified to judge teaching effectiveness. Understandably, we may be put off when the evaluators of our work are less educated than we are. How can we trust undergraduate students to render valid judgments about our teaching effectiveness when most of them have never taught? Perhaps an analogy from another profession may be of use in answering this question. Logically, one important factor in physician evaluation would be patient ratings of experiences with their physician that include perceptions of progress in recovery, the physician’s interpersonal skills, quality of care, and so forth (Manary, Boulding, Staelin, & Glickman, 2013). Patients are not doctors, but ignoring the input of patients about their doctors would be foolish. Students are not professors, but the same logic applies—ignoring student input is foolish. In fact, in a review of 31 studies, Feldman (1989a) found that student views of what constitutes effective teaching are very similar to those of faculty (average correlation = .71).

Student Feedback Data is Unreliable

Reliability refers to consistency, and well-constructed student feedback has a great deal of it (see review by Benton & Cashin, 2014). Actually, student feedback within the same class tends to be highly consistent in students’ own ratings, in ratings over students within the same class, and in ratings of the same lecturer across multiple courses.

Personal Factors Unrelated to Learning Influence Ratings

In studies of student feedback collected in actual classes, gender is only weakly related to ratings (see literature reviews by Benton & Cashin, 2011, 2014). Further, Li, Benton, and Ryalls (in press) analyzed data collected from IDEA student feedback in over 15,000 classes taught by female instructors and over 12,000 taught by male instructors. Multiple institutions, Carnegie classifications, and disciplines were represented. The authors found no differences in overall ratings of teaching, the course, and average student progress on relevant learning objectives.

Millennial Students are more Punishing in their Ratings

Every generation of teachers has probably uttered something like, “the students of today are not like the ones I taught years ago.” So, no surprise, the millennial generation is getting its turn to be criticized. Members of the millennial generation, ranging in birth dates from the early 1980s to the early 2000s, are believed to share common characteristics, one of which is a sense of entitlement (Nilson, 2013; Twenge, 2006). Nilson (2013) has argued that millennial students feel entitled to receive high grades without putting out much effort. Accordingly, some teachers fear that millennial students will be even more likely than prior generations to assign low ratings to lecturers who give lower than expected grades. In point of fact, average overall ratings of the lecturers and course have increased steadily since 2002 (Benton et al, 2015), which refutes the notion that millennials tend to be more “punishing” in their ratings.

Obtaining Student Feedback

How To Obtain Student Feedback

Student feedback can be obtained in various ways. At SU we have an institutional student feedback system with standardized questionnaires, but lecturers can also obtain their own real-time, customized feedback for purpose of developing their modules and enhancing the teaching and learning process for themselves as well as their students.

1. The SU Electronic Student Feedback System

A key priority of the process is to develop an information producing system that will focus on aspects of teaching that are closely linked with improved learning. In this way the new questionnaires should provide both lecturers and students a vocabulary that will support meaningful conversations to work towards effective, quality teaching.

Moving towards an electronic system will also create the opportunity for a more flexible system which could contribute to such conversations. It will allow lecturers greater access to formative feedback possibilities and enable them to easily develop their own customised feedback instruments. In this regard, student feedback can thus play a much bigger role in the enhancement of modules, programmes and teaching. Reports could also be made available much quicker, so as to enable lecturers to respond to feedback, if necessary. Students will also be able to experience the outcomes of their feedback.

The electronic system should focus on delivering an effective service known for the optimal use of available resources and technology, the fast and effective processing of data and the timely distribution of results. An automated system should create the space to achieve this.

Since October 2018 the institution embarked on using an electronic student feedback system and the processing of paper feedback can only be handled until the end of 2019.  Lecturers are therefore urged to start using the electronic feedback system as soon as possible.

Step 1: Departments and Lecturers
1. Complete an e-registration form Click here for the E-registration form.
2. Inform students of the feedback questionnaire that will be available. Students will also receive a formal notification via the system.

Step 2: Access for Students to the System and Questionnaires
1. Students will receive an email from the system with a link to the questionnaire.
2. Students are guided to click on the link and log in using their SU username and password.
3. Students are guided to complete the questionnaire.

Step 3: Data Administration
1. Once a questionnaire has been activated, the relevant lecturer will be notified via email.
2. Regular notifications will be sent to students for the period for which a questionnaire is available.
3. After the questionnaire has closed, the Student Feedback Office will extract the data from the system and generate a report. All reports will be sent from Sharepoint to the following persons:
• Lecturers – each lecturer will receive a report separately
• Heads of Department – A file is created on Sharepoint, which stores all feedback reports per department. Only the Head of Department will receive access to the relevant department’s file.
• Faculty Deans – A file is created on Sharepoint for each faculty in which all feedback reports are stored. Only the Dean will have access to all feedback reports.

Step 4: Follow-up ActionsLecturers are encouraged to give feedback to their students in terms of the use and impact of feedback to promote learning and teaching.
The revised Teaching and Learning Policy (7.1.3) indicates that student feedback is the primary source of information about students’ experience of learning and teaching, but that the data should be used throughout with other sources. Examples of such sources are feedback from colleagues, self-evaluation and literature (research).

Confidentiality: The Student Feedback Office is aware of the confidentiality of the reports and will not share information with unauthorized persons. Only staff from the Student Feedback Office of the Centre for Teaching and Learning have access to the information and authorized persons have access to information as indicated above.

For more information please contact Ms Veronica Beukes (, Ms Roshnique Pharo ( or Ms Ilke Arnolds ​( ).

Management (including the HOD & Dean):

  • The line function management in a particular environment ensures that student feedback on all modules and lecturers is obtained on an annual basis.
  • The line function management also assists lecturers in using the student feedback data for improving their teaching, and supports lecturers (especially inexperienced lecturers) with interpreting and utilising student feedback results, in order to optimise the role feedback could play in the development of individual teaching.
  • If student feedback is also used during performance appraisal processes, management must ensure that is done with great circumspection and appropriately (e.g. to never use student feedback out of context or as the sole source of information about teaching;  to ensure that academic staff are never directly involved obtaining summative feedback on a module which they teach; and to firstly aim to empower individual lecturers to improve their own teaching).
  • Student feedback is handled confidentially by departmental staff.
  • In cases where feedback on a module or lecturer is negative, departmental and module chairpersons are encouraged to utilise CTL’s consultation services and expertise to provide that lecturer with support and to undertake suitable training actions.

Programme Committees and Coordinators:

Student feedback on learning and teaching programmes (excluding the mainly research-based programmes at M and D level) is obtained annually at the end of the final academic year of the programme. Final-year students participate in the survey. Programme committees and coordinators are responsible for overseeing this feedback process. In the case of structured M-programmes, the feedback must be obtained at the end of the structured part of the programme.

The Lecturer:

  • The lecturer should inform his/her students about the actions that were taken or are planned based on previous student feedback received. This will enhance the integrity of the process and will also encourage students to participate in the process.
  • In order to give all lecturers the opportunity to reflect on their own experience of teaching a module and placing student feedback results in context, a structured Lecturer Feedback questionnaire is provided for completion by lecturers during student feedback. The completed form is submitted together with the completed student feedback questionnaires and is attached to the copies of the student feedback report that are sent to the line function managers.

Please click here for the Lecturer Feedback form.

The Students:

  • Students are expected to approach the feedback process responsibly and with integrity.
  • Students should provide constructive feedback that is clear and specific, in order for the lecturer to be able to respond in ways that will enhance student learning.
  • Feedback given by students should focus on teaching and learning related matters and should exclude personal comments about lecturers and the use of foul, abusive or degrading language.

The Centre for Teaching and Learning:

The mission of the CTL is to create professional learning opportunities for academic staff in faculties and to be thought leaders in the areas of responsive, innovative and scholarly teaching and learning. Student feedback serves as one example of such professional learning opportunities offered by the CTL. The University has vested in the Centre for Teaching and Learning the expertise and facilities to provide a service to the University community with regard to student feedback. CTL can also play a supporting role with regard to the analysis and interpretation of student feedback (e.g. the identification of general trends), feedback to academic staff, and recommendations on suitable follow-up actions.

CTL has the following responsibilities with regard to questionnaires:

  • Within the electronic student feedback system, CTL is responsible for drawing up the electronic questionnaires, giving users access to obtain the feedback electronically, and extracting, processing and securely storing the data.
  • The results of summative student feedback on lecturers and modules are made available to the lecturer involved, the dean and the departmental/ module chairperson (and, where applicable, divisional heads)
  • The results of student feedback on learning and teaching programmes are made available to the dean and the programme coordinator.
  • The CTL can also assist with developing customised methods of obtaining student feedback, in addition to the institutional student feedback system.
  • * Please note: The CTL is no way directly involved in the evaluation of the quality of teaching, modules, or programmes.

2. Classroom Assessment Techniques (CATs)

Classroom assessment refers to the close observation of students in the process of learning and the collection of frequent feedback on students’ learning. Using various classroom assessment techniques can help lecturers to obtain useful real-time (formative) feedback on what, how much and how well students are learning.

For Lecturers:

  • It can provide short-term feedback about day-to-day learning and teaching processes at a time when it is still possible to make changes while the module is in progress;
  • The implementation of CATs generally requires less time than other traditional or institutional student feedback systems;
  • It can help to foster good rapport between lecturers and students and to increase the efficacy of teaching and learning;
  • It shows that the lecturer cares about learning;
  • It encourages the view of teaching as a formative process which evolves over time.

For Students:

  • CATs can help students to better monitor their own learning and to make adjustments in their study methods or approaches;
  • It can help to increase student engagement during classes.
  • One-minute Paper
    During the last few minutes of the class period, ask students to answer on a half–sheet of paper: “What is the most important point you learned today?”; and, “What point remains least clear to you?” The purpose is to elicit data about students’ comprehension of a particular class session.
    Review responses and note any useful comments. During the following class periods emphasize the issues illuminated by your students’ comments.
  • Muddiest Point
    Ask students to jot down a quick response to one question: “What was the muddiest point in….?” The focus of the muddiest point assessment might be a lecture, a discussion, a homework assignment, or a learning resources such as a text, a play, or a film.
    Quickly read through all the responses, looking for common types of muddy points and address those in a next class.
  • Clickers
    Use student response technologies such as clickers to ask questions in the middle of discussions or lectures and see how students understand the material.
  • Application Cards
    After teaching about an important theory, principle, or procedure, ask students to write down at least one real-world application for what they have just learned to determine how well they can transfer their learning.
    Quickly read once through the applications and categorize them according to their quality. Pick out a broad range of examples and present them to the class.
  • Mid-course (formative) Feedback
    After four or five weeks of classes, ask students anonymously what is working and what improvements you might make to help them learn more effectively. Always discuss the results with your students so that they know you have read them and taken them seriously. You may also discuss this information with your line management, another colleague or the CTL adviser in your faculty.

For more information and examples, please see:
Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Interpreting And Responding To Data

Interpretation Of Student Feedback Data And Responding To It

Closing The Loop

Closing The Feedback Loop

It is counterproductive to ask students for information then not use it. Students will become cynical and uncooperative if they think no one really cares about what they experience. Student feedback data thus needs to be transformed into meaningful information which is shared with students as well. It is important to inform students about actions that are/were taken on the basis of their views. By concentrating on action that has already been taken or is planned for the new year or semester, feedback to students can help to shape their reasonable expectations of the module and can provide them with a benchmark to measure improvement of the module or teaching.

The SU Rules for Obtaining and Utilising Student Feedback about programmes, modules and lecturers, stipulate the following:

“At his/her discretion the dean may, via the departmental or module chairperson and the programme coordinator (in the case of learning and teaching programmes):
a.i.i. provide the students and other stakeholders with the relevant information in a suitable manner,
a.i.ii. make effective use of class representatives in order to make relevant student feedback information available to students; and
a.i.iii. where necessary, launch appropriate follow-up actions”.

1. How to Present Feedback to Students

There are several methods that lecturers and institutions can use to present feedback to students:

  • The most effective way would be for all lecturers to announce in the first class of the module what they learned from the student feedback in the previous round of teaching the module, and what they are doing about it.
  • Another channel of feeding back to students is direct communication with groups of students, such as student representatives. This would, however, rely on these students to actually relay the information to the rest of the student body and to do it in appropriate and reliable ways.
  • Departmental or student newsletters could also be a useful way of disseminating information to staff and students. These newsletters can be done in electronic format or as leaflets.

Feeding back to students will encourage them to participate in the feedback process, especially if it is made clear what actions have been based on the feedback they have provided! An increase in the response rates will also increase lecturers’ confidence in the results.

2. Types of Information to feed back to Students

Feedback to students should always include the actions taken or the actions planned based on the feedback that they have provided.

At the very least, the aggregated results of student feedback with regard to modules and programmes should be made available to the relevant students, provided that each faculty makes arrangements in conjunction with the relevant student committees for the release of such aggregated student feedback, and that these arrangements ensure that all students have access to the information.

Results with regard to individual lecturers’ teaching are not made available in this manner.

Students who participate in the feedback process will remain anonymous.

Best Practices

Best Practices In Using Student Feedback For Teaching Evaluation

When used appropriately, student feedback has a place in summative evaluation. Whereas formative evaluation is focused on improvement, summative ratings can provide indirect evidence of effective teaching. Ratings should be collected from every course, but not necessarily every semester, so that evaluators can look for global trends in the data, such as steady performance, declines, or improvements, as well as certain courses that may need attention.

In using student feedback for personnel decisions, the following best practices are recommended, in the context of policy determination that SU uses student feedback firstly to empower individual lecturers to improve their own teaching; and only thereafter for any other purpose, and then with great circumspection.

Any evaluation of teaching effectiveness should incorporate multiple measures, such as peer ratings of course goals, design, and assessments; direct student outcome measures (e.g. creations, projects, papers); lecturer self-reflections; and so forth (Hoyt & Pallett, 1999; Halonen, Dunn, McCarthy, & Baker, 2012).

  • Peer review is a credible source for evaluation of course goals and objectives, intellectual content, methods and materials used in teaching, quality and appropriateness of evaluation practices, and evidence of student learning. But, the validity of peer review improves when faculty undergo some training. Ratings by colleagues can be unreliable and less valid when done by untrained observers and with an unsystematic approach to the evaluation (Marsh, 2007; Marsh & Dunkin, 1997).
  • External recognition from outside experts can provide evidence that the faculty member’s teaching is exemplary. Nominations for a teaching award, invitations to write a chapter or book about teaching, and requests to speak about teaching practices or share course materials are possible indicators that a lecturer’s teaching is praiseworthy.
  • Participation in professional development activities demonstrates the desire to improve when evidenced by lecturer self-reflection about how the activity led to modifications in the course or approaches to teaching.
  • Exemplary contributions to the department are shown when teaching large sections, developing curriculum and aligning it with accreditation standards, and helping colleagues improve their teaching.
  • Embedded assessments (i.e. student completion of class assignments and activities aligned with learning outcomes) signal whether specific learning outcomes were accomplished. Examples include student writing samples, self-reflection on service-learning projects, comparisons between students’ subject matter knowledge before and after teaching and learning, and student portfolios of completed work.

How frequently and for how many courses to administer student feedback, ought to depend on the purpose of the evaluation and the employment status of the lecturer  (Hoyt & Pallett, 1999). For new lecturers and those on contract, it might make sense to collect student rating data for every course and section.  If student feedback is considered when making employment recommendations, at least two sets of ratings should have been collected for the lecturer beforehand, with fair opportunity after the first set to empower the lecturer to improve his/her teaching.

Their chief value lies in the contributions they can make to improving teaching or the course (Braskamp et al, 1981). If sophisticated qualitative data analysis is done, written comments can be interpreted more systematically. It is advisable to separate thoughtful comments that represent the majority sentiment of the class from attitudes of a vocal minority or those with personal biases.

Just as faculty must have confidence in the system, students must be assured their responses will remain confidential. Inform students that data will be held in a secure environment, will only be analyzed at the class level, and that results presented to the lecturer will not be associated with any identifying information.

Lecturers can create value for student feedback by placing relevant objectives alongside specific course objectives in the syllabus, informing students about modifications made in the course based on previous student feedback, encouraging them to complete the ratings, distributing a copy of a sample report given to lecturers, and assuring confidentiality of responses. Institutions can communicate reminders through social media, university portals, learning management systems, department web sites, student publications, radio, flyers, and posters. Ongoing feedback should be championed as part of the institutional culture of enhancing student learning and ensuring program quality.

Faculty must have confidence that ratings are collected similarly across courses and lecturers. Written instructions to students should be standardized. Lecturers should leave the room because ratings tend to be higher when the lecturer is present (Braskamp & Ory, 1994; Centra, 1993; Feldman, 1979; Marsh & Dunkin, 1992). At SU, ratings are collected by a neutral party and the data is taken to a location where they remain unavailable to the lecturer until after grades have been submitted (Cashin, 1999). To ensure monitoring of procedures, students should be informed of policies and provided the means to report  violations of them.  All participants in the feedback system can report any breaches of the policy and the rules to the Student Feedback Office. 


Frequently Asked Questions

Student feedback (SFB) can have different purposes for different users, eg. do you need the data to include in a teaching portfolio, do you experience some kind of a challenge in your teaching, do you plan to change the curriculum, were there significant changes in the module/programme or perhaps in the cohort of students, etc?

Some of the main purposes of student feedback at SU are:

  • To empower lecturers to improve their teaching
  • To contribute to the professional learning of lecturers
  • To be used as part of the teaching and learning process
  • To enhance the students’ experience of learning and teaching
  • To ensure the effectiveness of course design and delivery
  • To help students reflect on their experiences and provide constructive inputs to the teaching and learning process
  • To identify good practice
  • To contribute to monitoring and reviewing of quality and standards

At Stellenbosch University, we encourage that student feedback should first aim to empower lecturers to improve their own teaching. Only thereafter should student feedback be used for any other purpose, and then with great circumspection.

Furthermore, it is up to the staff member involved to decide whether to discuss the feedback with colleagues and what action to take. The advisor from the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) who is allocated to your faculty, is available to discuss the feedback and collaborate in the development of improved teaching strategies if requested.

You can find the CTL contact details here.

Student feedback is only one source of feedback on the teaching and learning process. Should you wish to discuss alternative ways of obtaining feedback on your teaching or modules, from sources other than students, please do not hesitate to contact the CTL advisor in your faculty.

YES! We encourage lecturers to complete and submit the Lecturer Feedback form. This form gives lecturers the opportunity to report on their own experiences in presenting a particular module and can help to place the student feedback in context. Please click here for the Lecturer Feedback form.

Benefits of the electronic system are that it is more cost and time effective, less labour intensive and reports can be produced quicker. However, response rates might be lower in the electronic system. Lecturers are therefore urged to continuously remind students to complete the electronic questionnaires.

Moving towards an electronic system will also create the opportunity for a more flexible system which could contribute to such conversations. It will allow lecturers greater access to formative feedback possibilities and enable them to easily develop their own customised feedback instruments. In this regard, student feedback can thus play a much bigger role in the enhancement of modules, programmes and teaching. Reports could also be made available much quicker, so as to enable lecturers to respond to feedback, if necessary. Students will also be able to experience the outcomes of their feedback.

Student feedback can be collected electronically on standardized questionnaires for feedback on undergraduate and taught postgraduate modules and programmes. The electronic student feedback questionnaires are made available via the electronic Student Feedback system.

Faculties will also have the option of adding an extra 5 questions to the standardized questionnaire in order to obtain information on aspects that pertain to the particular contexts of their faculties. These additional 5 questions have to be approved by the appropriate faculty board.

Students can complete the forms electronically over a set period of time.

Please complete the e-registration form from our website and submit. The Student Feedback Office will create and activate the questionnaire in your academic module on the Student Feedback system. Lecturers will not be able to access these student feedback questionnaires as the anonymity of the students who provide their feedback, must be protected.

Send an e-mail to if you have any questions or uncertainties.

Reports on feedback collected electronically will be available within 7 days after closing of the survey. You will receive an e-mail notification once your report is available. The Student Feedback Office will send you a link to access your reports in Sharepoint.
Your line management (HOD and Dean) will also have access to your reports on the Sharepoint platform.

Yes, see Guidelines for Analysing and Interpreting Student Feedback reports here.

The CTL advisor in your faculty can provide advice regarding the design of your questionnaire.

The Student Feedback Office can provide assistance with the technical set-up of your questionnaire.


  • Centra, J.A., 2003. Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work? Research in Higher Education, 44(5), pp.495-518.
  • Benton, S.L., Guo, M., Li, D. and Gross, A., 2013. Student ratings, teacher standards, and critical thinking skills. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
  • Keane, E. and Labhrainn, I.M., 2005. Obtaining student feedback on teaching & course quality. Briefing paper, 2, pp.1-19.
  • Richardson, J.T., 2005. Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & evaluation in higher education, 30(4), pp.387-415.
  • Alderman, L., Towers, S. and Bannah, S., 2012. Student feedback systems in higher education: A focused literature review and environmental scan. Quality in Higher Education, 18(3), pp.261-280.
  • Benton, S.L. and Ryalls, K.R., 2016. Challenging Misconceptions about Student Ratings of Instruction. IDEA Paper# 58. IDEA Center, Inc.
  • Braskamp, L.A. and Ory, J.C., 1994. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
  • Feldman, K.A., 1976. Grades and college students’ evaluations of their courses and teachers. Research in Higher Education, 4(1), pp.69-111.
  • Howard, G.S. and Maxwell, S.E., 1982. Do grades contaminate student evaluations of instruction?. Research in higher education, 16(2), pp.175-188.
  • Howard, G. S., & Maxwell, S. E. (1980). The correlation between student satisfaction and grades: A case of mistaken causation? Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 810-820.
  • Marsh, H. W., and Dunkin, M. J. “Students’ Evaluations of University Teaching: A Multidimensional Perspective.” In R. Perry and J. Smart (eds.), Effective Teaching in Higher Education: Research and Practice. New York: Agathon Press, 1997.
  • Marsh, H. W., and Roche, L. A. “Effects of Grading Leniency and Low Workload on Students’ Evaluations of Teaching: Popular Myth, Bias, Validity, or Innocent Bystanders?” Journal of Educational Psychology, 2000, 92(1), 202–228.
  • McKeachie, W.J., 1997. Student ratings: The validity of use.
  • Nilson, L., 2013. Creating self-regulated learners: Strategies to strengthen students? self-awareness and learning skills. Stylus Publishing, LLC..
  • Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation Me. New York: Free Press.
  • Manary, M.P., Boulding, W., Staelin, R. and Glickman, S.W., 2013. The patient experience and health outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 368(3), pp.201-203.
  • Benton, S.L. and Cashin, W.E., 2014. Student ratings of instruction in college and university courses. In Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 279-326). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Li, D., Benton, S.L., Brown, R., Sullivan, P. and Ryalls, K.R., 2016. Analysis of IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction System 2015 Pilot Data. IDEA Technical Report No. 19. IDEA Center, Inc.
  • Angelo, T. A., and Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A handbook for college teachers. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  • Mills, M., Goos, M., Keddie, A., Honan, E., Pendergast, D., Gilbert, R., … Wright, T. (2009). Productive pedagogies: A redefined methodology for analysing quality teacher practice. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36, 127–144.
  • Darling-Hammond, L., 1997. Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future, Kutztown Distribution Center, 15076 Kutztown Road, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
  • Newmann, F.M., 1996. Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. Jossey-Bass.
  • Sizer, T. R. (1996). Horace’s hope: What works for the American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
  • Boaler, J., 2002. Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Routledge.
  • Perry, T., Steele, C. & Hilliard, A. (2003). Young gifted and Black: promoting high achievement among African American students. Boston: Beacon Press.
  • Lingard, B., Hayes, D. and Mills, M., 2003. Teachers and productive pedagogies: Contextualising, conceptualising, utilising. Pedagogy, Culture and Society, 11(3), pp.399-424.
  • Hargreaves, A., 2003. Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Teachers College Press.
  • Benton, S.L., Cashin, W.E. and Kansas, E., 2012. Idea paper# 50 student ratings of teaching: A summary of research and literature.
  • Hoyt, D.P. and Pallett, W.H., 1999. Appraising teaching effectiveness: Beyond student ratings. IDEA Center.
  • Halonen, J.S., Dunn, D.S., McCarthy, M.A. and Baker, S.C., 2012. Are you really above average? Documenting your teaching effectiveness. Evidence-based teaching for higher education. Washington, DC: APA Books.
  • Marsh, H.W., 2007. Students’ evaluations of university teaching: Dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319-383). Springer, Dordrecht.
  • Braskamp, L.A. and Ory, J.C., 1994. Assessing Faculty Work: Enhancing Individual and Institutional Performance. Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome Street, San Francisco, CA 94104.
  • Centra, J.A., 1993. Reflective Faculty Evaluation: Enhancing Teaching and Determining Faculty Effectiveness. The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Inc., 350 Sansome St., San Francisco, CA 94104.
  • Feldman, K.A., 1979. The significance of circumstances for college students’ ratings of their teachers and courses. Research in Higher Education, 10(2), pp.149-172.
  • Marsh, H.W. and Dunkin, M.J., 1992. Students’ evaluation of university teaching: A multidimensional perspective. Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, 8(1), pp.143-233.
  • Braskamp, L.A., Ory, J.C. and Pieper, D.M., 1981. Student written comments: Dimensions of instructional quality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(1), p.65.

Award-winning national teaching portfolios

Theoretical Grounding For The Use Of Student Feedback

The Reflective Practitioner

Kane, Sandretto & Heath 2004
Kane, R., Sandretto, S. and Heath, C., 2004. An investigation into excellent tertiary teaching: Emphasising reflective practice. Higher education, 47(3), pp.283-310.

Reference to Schon (Educating the reflective practitioner)

Schön, D.A., 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner.
Schön, D.A., 2010. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 50(2), p.448.

Productive Pedagogies

Mills 2009_Productive Pedagogies
Mills, M., Goos, M., Keddie, A., Honan, E., Pendergast, D., Gilbert, R., … Wright, T. (2009). Productive pedagogies: A redefined methodology for analysing quality teacher practice. The Australian Educational Researcher, 36, 127–144.

Gore_PP and Teacher Education
Gore, J.M., Griffiths, T. and Ladwig, J.G., 2002, December. Exploring ‘productive pedagogy’as a framework for teacher learning. In Annual Meeting of the Australian Association for Research in Education, Brisbane, Australia.

Gore, J.M., Griffiths, T. and Ladwig, J.G., 2004. Towards better teaching: Productive pedagogy as a framework for teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 20(4), pp.375-387.

Transformative Learning (Mezirow)

Mezirow_Transformative Learning Theory
Mezirow, J., 1997. Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New directions for adult and continuing education, 1997(74), pp.5-12.

Table of Contents
    Add a header to begin generating the table of contents

    Table of contents