Feedback Results

Understanding your SCF Results

Meet with a CTLE Consultant - Click here to request
Request one of our Higher-Education Instructional Consultants or Graduate Fellows to review your SCF report. They will meet with you afterward to go over your SCF results individually with you, offering suggestions for improvement in future semesters.

Meet with the SCF Program Manager
Email or call us to set up an appointment. We'll go over the terminology used in your report and offer suggestions for future semesters, such as how to get a higher response rate from students.

 

Important things to keep in mind about your results

Formal Teaching Evaluations, such as RPT - It is important that multiple sources of information are used when evaluating teaching effectiveness (Beran, Violato & Kline, 2007; Seldin, 2006; Ory 2001). Research suggests no more than 30-50% of teaching evaluation should come from student ratings (Hoyt & Pallett, 1999) and that student course feedback data should not be used alone in assessing teaching effectiveness (Cashin, 1995).

Response Rates - Reliability varies depending upon the number of student who submitted results. The greater the number of student responses, the more reliable the data (Cashin, 1995).

Recommend Ratings Response Rates
Class Size Recommended Response

5-20

At least 80%; more recommended

20-30

At least 75%; more recommended

30-50

At least 66%; 75% or more recommended

50 or more

At least 60%, 75%, or more recommended

100 or more

More than 50%, 75%, or more recommended

Source: Franklin and Theall (1991).

Research recommends that items with fewer than ten responses be interpreted with particular caution (Cashin, 1995) and for representative results data is required from at least two-thirds of the class (Cashin, 1990). Response rate (Forms Processed/Enrollment), should be 60% or more.

 

References

Beran, T., Violato, C., Kline, D. (2007). What’s the ‘use’ of student ratings of instruction for administrators? One university’s experience. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 17(1), 27-43.

Cashin, W. (1995). Student ratings of teaching: The research revisited (IDEA Paper No. 32). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Cashin, W. (1990). Student ratings of teaching: Recommendations for use (IDEA Paper No. 22). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluation and Development.

Franklin, J. (2001). Interpreting the numbers: Using a narrative to help others read student evaluations of your teaching accurately. In K.G. Lewis (ED.), Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluations [Special issue]. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 87, 85-100.

Hoyt, D.P., & Pallett, W.H. (1999). Appraising teaching effectiveness: Beyond student ratings (IDEA Paper No. 36). Manhattan, KS: Kansas State University Center for Faculty Evaluations and Development.

Ory, J.C. (2001). Faculty thoughts and concerns about student ratings. In K.G. Lewis (ED.), Techniques and strategies for interpreting student evaluations [Special issue]. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 87, 3-15.

Seldin, P. (2006). Evaluating Faculty Performance: A Practical Guide to Assessing Teaching, Research, and Service. Uses and Abuses of Student Ratings.