Rowan Susan, Newness Elmer J, Tetradis Sotirios, Prasad Joanne L, Ko Ching-Chang, Sanchez Arlene
Dr. Rowan is Clinical Associate Professor and Clinical Dean, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Illinois at Chicago College of Dentistry; Dr. Newness is Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Health and Integrated Care, University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry; Dr. Tetradis is Professor and Chair, Section of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, University of California, Los Angeles School of Dentistry; Dr. Prasad is Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Biology, University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine; Dr. Ko is Distinguished Professor and Vice Chair, Department of Orthodontics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Dentistry; and Dr. Sanchez is Professor and Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs, Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Puerto Rico School of Dental Medicine.
J Dent Educ. 2017 Nov;81(11):1362-1372. doi: 10.21815/JDE.017.093.
Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is often used in the assessment of faculty members' job performance and promotion and tenure decisions, but debate over this use of student evaluations has centered on the validity, reliability, and application of the data in assessing teaching performance. Additionally, the fear of student criticism has the potential of influencing course content delivery and testing measures. This Point/Counterpoint article reviews the potential utility of and controversy surrounding the use of SETs in the formal assessment of dental school faculty. Viewpoint 1 supports the view that SETs are reliable and should be included in those formal assessments. Proponents of this opinion contend that SETs serve to measure a school's effectiveness in support of its core mission, are valid measures based on feedback from the recipients of educational delivery, and provide formative feedback to improve faculty accountability to the institution. Viewpoint 2 argues that SETs should not be used for promotion and tenure decisions, asserting that higher SET ratings do not correlate with improved student learning. The advocates of this viewpoint contend that faculty members may be influenced to focus on student satisfaction rather than pedagogy, resulting in grade inflation. They also argue that SETs are prone to gender and racial biases and that SET results are frequently misinterpreted by administrators. Low response rates and monotonic response patterns are other factors that compromise the reliability of SETs.
学生对教学的评价（SET）常用于评估教师的工作表现以及晋升和 tenure 决策，但围绕学生评价的这种用途的争论集中在数据在评估教学表现方面的有效性、可靠性和应用上。此外，对学生批评的担忧有可能影响课程内容的传授和测试措施。这篇“正方/反方”文章回顾了在牙科学院教师的正式评估中使用 SET 的潜在效用及相关争议。观点 1 支持 SET 是可靠的且应纳入那些正式评估的观点。这一观点的支持者认为，SET 有助于衡量学校在支持其核心使命方面的有效性，是基于教育服务接受者反馈的有效衡量标准，并提供形成性反馈以提高教师对学校的问责制。观点 2 认为 SET 不应被用于晋升和 tenure 决策，声称较高的 SET 评分与学生学习的提高并无关联。这一观点的倡导者认为，教师可能会受到影响而专注于学生满意度而非教学法，从而导致成绩膨胀。他们还认为 SET 容易出现性别和种族偏见，且 SET 结果经常被管理人员误解。低回复率和单调的回复模式是损害 SET 可靠性的其他因素。 （注：“tenure”常见释义为“任期”，这里结合语境可能是指教师获得终身教职等相关决策，因具体准确含义需结合更多专业背景知识确定，暂保留英文未翻译得更精确）
