« Évaluation de l'enseignement » : différence entre les versions

Version du 3 décembre 2014 à 18:04

Cliquez sur Pages liées pour voir toutes les ressources associées à ce sujet.

Taille de la classe : "Recent research (Williams and Ory, 1992) found an average correlation of -.09 between class size and various rating items." (Jacobs_sd).
Discipline : "Research has shown that the highest ratings are given to courses in the arts and humanities, followed in descending order by biological and social sciences, business and computer science, and mathematics, engineering, and physical sciences (Cashin, 1992)." (Jacobs_sd).
Niveau du cours : "Ratings in higher-level courses tend to be higher than in lower-level courses." (Jacobs_sd).
Difficulté : "the courses that are more difficult or have greater workloads tend to receive higher ratings from students" (Jacobs_sd).
Moment où se donne le cours : "Time of day the course is taught has no meaningful influence on student ratings (Aleamoni, 1981; Feldman, 1978)." (Benton_Cashin_2012).

Résultat attendu : "students expecting high grades in a course tend to give higher ratings than do students expecting low grades. This relationship between expected grades and ratings is usually offered as evidence for the validity of ratings. Students can distinguish among instructors on the

basis of how much they have learned." (Jacobs_sd).

Motivation : "the mean correlation between the item, "I had a strong desire to take this course" with the overall rating was .39 (Cashin, 1988)." (Jacobs_sd).
Majeure/mineure : "majors in a class tend to rate instructor/course more positively than nonmajors" (Jacobs_sd).
Sexe : "Lueck and others (1993) found that male students tended to rate male instructors higher, while female students rated female instructors higher than male instructors. But, overall, there was no significant difference in the ratings given by male and female students." (Jacobs_sd).
Age : sans effet (Jacobs_sd).
Performance académique : sans effet (Jacobs_sd).
Personnalité : "No meaningful relationships exist between student personality and ratings (Abrami, Perry, & Leventhal, 1982)." (Benton_Cashin_2012).

Age : "In general, instructor age and years of teaching experience are not correlated with student ratings. However, where weak correlations have been found they tend to be negative (i.e., older faculty receive lower ratings, Feldman, 1983; Renaud & Murray, 1996)." (Benton_Cashin_2012).
Statut : "Regular faculty tend to receive higher ratings than teaching assistants" (Jacobs_sd).
Personnalité : certains traits de caractère pourraient avoir une influence mais ne sont jamais dissociables de l'action pédagogique (voir Benton_Cashin_2012).
Productivité en recherche : très faible corrélation de 0.12 (Feldman_1987 cité par Benton_Cashin_2012).
Sexe : normalement sans effet (Feldman_2003, 28 études, corrélation 0.2) mais interaction avec la beauté (voir infra).
Beauté : voir Hamermesh Parker 2005.
Age : sans effet (Jacobs_sd).
Années d'expérience dans l'enseignement : sans effet (Jacobs_sd). Voir aussi Marsh_2007 et âge supra.

Présence de l'enseignant dans la classe : "Ratings are generally more positive if the instructor remains in the room." (Jacobs_sd)
Moment de l'administration : "Ratings given during final exams are lower than those given sometime earlier in the term." (Jacobs_sd)
Anonymat : les évaluations non anonymes sont moins fiables / plus positives (Jacobs_sd)
Instructions : "Ratings are more positive if the instructor states that the purpose is for his/her promotion or tenure."(Jacobs_sd)

@@ Ligne 25 : / Ligne 25 : @@
 === Outils pour aider l'enseignant à lire/interpréter ses évaluations de l'enseignement ===
 * [[Berthiaume Sylvestre 2012]]
-* Un guide de McGill : http://www.mcgill.ca/tls/sites/mcgill.ca.tls/files/course_evaluation_results_interpretation_guidelines_2.pdf (à encoder sous [[Winer_Di_Genova_et_al_2012]])
+* Un guide de McGill : [[Winer_Di_Genova_et_al_2012]]