





































Microsoft Word - ELSR-V1N1-p144.docx


Education, Language and Sociology Research 
ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

144 
 

Original Paper 

Student Evaluation of Teaching: Exploring Instructor and 

Student Perspectives with Course Redesign 

Abby Halston1*, Taylor Lum1 & Hans Chun1 
1School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University, Honolulu, United States  
*Abby Halston, School of Education and Behavioral Sciences, Chaminade University, Honolulu, 

United States 

 

Received: June 6, 2020       Accepted: June 12, 2020      Online Published: June 19, 2020 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v1n1p144         URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v1n1p144 

 

Abstract 

Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET), or instructor evaluations, is used as a significant instrument 

across the world to measure instructors teaching methods and course evaluations. With the lack of 

standardized SET across universities and institutions, this study gains insight into how instructors use 

and improve student evaluations and students’ views of how their feedback is utilized by posing questions 

to university students and faculty through focus groups and interviews. Data was gathered and recorded 

to interpret students’ perceptions with how instructors utilize the students’ evaluations and instructors’ 

perceptions of student evaluations and how the instructors use the students’ feedback. Results indicate 

that students and instructors have different values for student feedback and curriculum improvement. 

Implications of different values for student feedback and curriculum improvement include instructors not 

attempting to improve their teaching and course, students poorly rating their instructors, and students 

that may not be challenged due to possibly receiving a negative evaluation. 

Keywords 

student evaluations, course evaluations, instructor evaluations, higher education, course redesign 

 

1. Introduction 

Most universities use Student Evaluation of Teaching (SET), or instructor evaluations, to evaluate and 

give feedback on their instructors’ effectiveness with the course. Traditionally, many universities utilize 

a “cafeteria-style” with regards to sharing similar characteristics with their course evaluations. These 

characteristics include (1) a self-assessment with various open and closed-ended questions about the 

instructor’s teaching effectiveness and curriculum, (2) a question asking about “overall” effectiveness, (3) 

a comments section where students can elaborate about their instructor’s effectiveness and curriculum, (4) 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

145 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the notion that the students’ feedback and comments are anonymous, (5) the evaluations are presented at 

the end of the term without the presence of their instructor, (6) these evaluations are summarized and 

presented to the instructors and departments to reveal the evidence of the effectiveness of instructors to 

make several institutional recommendations, (7) differences between students (e.g., GPA, year) and 

instructors (e.g., beginner, experienced) are not influenced in the analysis to determine effectiveness 

(Algozinne et al., 2004).  

The use of student evaluations was initially introduced during the mid-1920s in the United States and 

Australia and then, in later years, reaching Asia and Europe (Algozzine et al., 2004; Macfadyen et al., 

2016). Determining the strengths and weaknesses of the courses along with instructors promoting the 

overall direction of their teaching (also known as formative evaluation) is another use of SETs 

(Algozzine et al., 2004; Haladyna & Amrein-Beardsley, 2009). It also provides feedback on the teaching 

faculty staff ratings for tenure, promotion, and salary (known as summative evaluations) (Algozzine et al., 

2004; Zhao & Gallant, 2012).  

Due to the increasing interest in these instructor evaluations, research on student evaluations has 

increased with the intent to improve and expand the usage of SETs. Emery, Kramer, and Tian (2003) 

found that 600 colleges in the United States increased the use of student evaluations of teaching 

effectiveness from 29 percent to 86 percent. While in Canada, 94 percent of their universities use some 

method for students to evaluate faculty’s effectiveness (Saroyan & Amundsen, 2001). Individual 

institutions have prepared and developed student evaluation forms to modify to their institutional needs 

(Richardson, 2005). 

SET provides a way to gain feedback about the instructor’s effectiveness in teaching and a measure for 

administration to use for teaching effectiveness (Macfadyen et al., 2016). It could also provide 

information about achieving learning goals and objectives, relating with the teacher, classroom 

components (i.e., homework, materials of instruction), and student and teacher communication (Zhao & 

Gallant, 2012). Institutions of higher education typically share commonalities in the structure of their 

SETs to determine the overall rating, course, and teaching effectiveness of the instructor (Algozinne et 

al., 2004). Usually, this evaluation is based on a rating scale from 1 to 5 (e.g., unsatisfactory to excellent, 

very poor to very good). Surveys consist of questions that ask about excitement, clearly speaking, 

preparedness, proper skills with the instructor’s teaching efforts (Barth, 2008).  

Students’ ratings of teaching are a source of feedback to the instructors and administration (Macfadyen et 

al., 2016; Richardson, 2005). There are strengths and weaknesses in utilizing SETs to gain insight into 

students’ success with learning objectives and course evaluation. Strengths of SETs include giving the 

students a voice to give feedback about the course (e.g., homework, classroom instructions, teaching 

styles, student-teacher interactions), describing ways to improve the curriculum, and providing 

information about the success of learning goals and objectives. Weaknesses include, in some cases, the 

SET’s primary role in influencing administration’s decisions with promotions and tenures, the utilization 

of self-assessment in the SETs, and unconscious influence that summative evaluation may have with 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

146 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

formulating the course to fit these standards to obtain higher ratings (Chan et al., 2007). With these 

strengths and weaknesses of SETs, administration and faculty could determine how they could use this 

feedback to better their students, courses, and institution. 

Student evaluations are an essential component in determining teaching effectiveness. Ratings of 

teaching effectiveness from students are a plausible resource compared to other sources (Zhao & Gallant, 

2012). Studies examined student evaluation factors (i.e., organization, workload/difficulty, 

expected/fairness of grading, instructor liking/concern, perceived learning, instructor accessibility, and 

student-instructor relationship) that influence the overall course, instructor rating, and teaching 

effectiveness (Barth, 2008; Cohen, 2005). Marks (2000) discovered that instructors who had more 

challenging assignments and workloads garnered a negative effect. This factor affected the instructor’s 

rating because the student may feel they would not get a good grade. Barth (2008) suggested that 

instructors with demanding standards have a negative influence on their overall rating. Cohen (2005) 

found that the teacher and student relationship was not entirely related to the course evaluation.  

Organizational skills (i.e., excitement, clearly speaking, preparedness, and proper skills) represented 

good qualities for the instructor’s teaching. Students’ perception of their learning was also a significant 

factor that determined the importance of the course. Student perceptions affect the instructor’s overall 

rating of teaching effectiveness (Marks, 2000). Also, instructors that are willing to help and work with 

students have a positive overall score. These results suggest that the quality of instruction and willingness 

to help are significant factors that influence teachers’ ratings (Barth, 2008).  

Prior studies share an understanding of the purpose and usefulness of SETs. However, more research is 

needed regarding the need for bridging the gap with how instructors improve their teaching and course 

effectiveness. This study examines how instructors use their student evaluations and students’ 

perceptions of the course. An analysis of the evaluation process from both the instructors’ and students’ 

points of view are utilized along with how it factors into changing the curriculum and instructors’ 

teaching effectiveness. 

 

2. Method 

2.1 Participants 

The participants were students (N = 11) and instructors (N = 6) at a private university in the Pacific region. 

The ages of the student participants ranged from 18 to 35. Instructors’ ages ranged from 40 to 65. The 

students’ and instructors’ genders included individuals who identify as either male or female. The 

participants were asked by the principal investigators to voluntarily answer questions in focus groups 

with undergraduate and graduate students and individual interviews with instructors. The focus groups 

were about 60 minutes long, while the individual interviews lasted about 10-15 minutes. There was a 

total of two focus groups and six individual interviews. The participants received no compensation for 

their participation in the study.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

147 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

2.2 Data Collection  

All participants were recorded by one of the principal investigators and were asked seven questions in the 

focus groups and eight questions in the individual interviews. The focus groups responded to questions 

about the students’ perceptions of instructor evaluation assessment. The questions examined the purpose 

of the course evaluation, their opinion on how the instructor’s use course feedback, and whether the 

course evaluation form should be changed. Also, this study examined students’ perceptions of how 

instructors benefit from the student input on course feedback and whether students should be the ones to 

evaluate their instructors. This study also investigated the student’s suggestions of course improvement 

and their preference in completing course evaluations in-class via paper and pen/pencil or via online. 

The individual interview questions examined the faculties’ perceptions of student feedback and 

improvements in instruction. The interview questions consisted of the instructor’s utilization of student 

evaluations, their reactions to student evaluation feedback, and their major considerations when using 

student evaluations for improving their teaching. Lastly, this study investigated whether the 

questionnaire for feedback should be changed, suggested questions they would like to see on the form 

and whether instructors benefit from student input; in addition, this study examined whether the students 

should be evaluating the instructors and their recommendations on how to improve the process to better 

use student input. The questions were asked after completion of the Informed Consent for both students 

and instructors. 

2.3 Data Analysis  

Participants were recruited for this study by the principal investigators to be interviewed and to evaluate 

the participants’ (students and instructors) perceptions. A principal investigator asked two classes with 

one class of undergraduate students and another class with graduate students to participate in this study. 

Faculty members were also asked individually if they would like to participate in this study. Both 

students and faculty were informed that the purpose of the study was to gain feedback about their 

perceptions and utilizations of SETs with instructors.  

Once all the participants verbally agreed to participate in this study, they were informed that the purpose 

of this study was to evaluate how instructors use student feedback. They were told that the focus would 

be about 60 minutes long, and the interview would last 10-15 minutes. They were informed that 

participation is voluntary and could be terminated at any time. The participants were also told that they 

would be recorded to analyze their answers and would receive no compensation. Furthermore, they also 

had to complete a demographics portion which inquired about their ethnicity, gender, age, classification 

(e.g., Faculty), and department affiliation. The participants then signed an Informed Consent.  

Each focus group and individual interviews were recorded separately. Researchers created mostly 

open-ended questions so they participants could discuss their perspectives and concerns with SETs and 

instructors. Researchers asked a set of questions to evaluate their perceptions of student feedback and 

improvements on the student evaluation form. Each session took place in a classroom for the focus 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

148 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

groups and in the instructor’s office for the individual interviews, both on campus. After, the participants 

were thanked for their participation.  

To analyze the qualitative data, the evaluation method of triangulation was utilized. Triangulation is used 

to combine multiple ways to test consistency among the different sources of data (Patton, 2002). All 

transcription was reviewed and coded by the researchers. Researchers used axial coding where 

researchers read the transcript and created open codes for each question, then formed and merged the 

significant categories, or themes, with the codes. The results of the focus group and individual interviews 

were reviewed, and the patterns of the responses were triangulated to determine the effects. 

 

Student Questions  Faculty Questions  

What is the purpose of course evaluations? How do you utilize student evaluations?  

What is your perception on how instructor’s use 

course feedback?  

How do you react and use student evaluation 

feedback?  

Should the course evaluation form questions be 

changed? Why?  

What major considerations do you have when 

using student evaluations for improving your own 

teaching?  

Do instructors benefit from student input on 

course feedback? 

Do you think the questions on the student 

evaluation form should be changed? Why?  

Should students be the ones to evaluate their 

instructors?  

If student evaluations were to change, what types 

of questions would you like to see on the form?  

How could the course evaluation form be 

improved? If so, what type of questions would you 

like to see on the form? 

In what ways do instructors benefit from the 

student input?  

 

Do you prefer to complete course evaluations in 

class via paper and pencil or complete course 

evaluations via online format? 

Should the students be the ones to evaluate their 

instructor  

 Do you have any recommendations with this 

process to improve student input? 

Figure 1. Questions Asked of the Participants 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

149 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3. Results 

3.1 Students  

Undergraduate and graduate students participated in focus groups and were posed questions to give 

feedback on their perceptions of how instructors use the student evaluation forms. Four themes were 

established with their responses: overall experience, varied instructors, student evaluation, and 

recommendations. Most students thought that the purpose of course evaluation was to inform about the 

instructor’s performance and their course experience. Other students believe that the use of the course 

evaluation was to determine whether the course is worth taking, for the instructors to make 

improvements on the course, and to evaluate the student’s experience. While for the theme, varied 

instructors, most students believed that how instructors use the student’s feedback and whether 

instructors benefit from student feedback depends on the instructor. For the student evaluation theme, the 

researchers asked the students how student evaluation could be improved. The students suggested that 

the assessment could include evaluating the preparation of the instructor, interaction with students, 

teaching styles and values, personality, accessibility, and generally more questions. Students also 

suggested that there shouldn’t be any improvements in the questions. Besides, students preferred taking 

the student evaluation form online for the recommendations theme. They also indicated that they would 

like to receive the evaluation after the term finished; moreover, the students wanted to be marked 

anonymous in their assessments.  

 

 
Figure 2. Each Question Was Coded and Split into Various Themes according to the Student’s 

Response to Each Question. Appendix A Displays a Table of the Interpretations of Codes and 

Themes 

 

 

 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

P
W
T IC CE SE

DO
IC
F

M
SQ

NC
Q

DO
ISI SE

I
P‐
S

PC
EI

ISI
CE
I

TS
CE
I

PC
EI

AC
EI

M
QC
EI NI OE PE IE

AC
E AE

N
u
m
b
e
r 
o
f 
St
u
d
e
n
ts

Evaluation Codes

Student's Themes



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

150 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

3.2 Faculty 

Faculty members also participated and answered questions in an interview. Seven themes were formed 

and analyzed with the faculty’s responses: the instructor’s experience, reactions, expectations, changes, 

input benefits, student evaluation, and recommendations. For the instructor’s experience theme, the 

researchers asked the faculty how they utilized student evaluations. Most instructors reported that they 

utilize student evaluations to improve their course (i.e., teaching, syllabi, books, and curriculum) and to 

use useful and not useful feedback. For reactions theme, some faculty react differently to student 

feedback by having no response. They also considered the student feedback or felt happy or disappointed 

when s/he received praise or not. Overall, most faculty indicated that they use student feedback to make 

improvements in their courses. They also shared that they value qualitative feedback or written responses 

to determine what has worked and hasn’t worked throughout their course experience. For the 

expectations theme, most faculty seemed to value positive and negative feedback from students so they 

could adjust in their teachings and courses. Faculty suggested more evaluations throughout the course 

and utilizing qualitative feedback or written responses to implement and improve the instructor’s 

teaching.  

Researchers also asked the faculty if the questions of the student evaluation form should be changed and 

what changes to make in regard to the theme of change. Most faculty suggested specific, more 

straightforward questions to add to the evaluation form, such as questions about teaching techniques and 

strategies. Other faculty suggested inputting questions about their learning outcomes or specifically 

asking in the qualitative way how the course was useful. For input benefits theme, the researchers asked 

the faculty members how they benefit from student input. Most faculty members indicated that they 

benefit from student input through helpful feedback to improve their teaching and courses. They also 

noted that they adjust for the students because they are the consumers. For student evaluation theme, 

most instructors believe that students should be the ones to evaluate the instructors. The instructors also 

gave recommendations on how they could improve student evaluations by preparing students to 

distinguish useful feedback. They also suggested evaluating twice a term, adding more specific questions, 

and more. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

151 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 3. Each Question Was Coded and Split into Various Themes according to the Instructor’s 

Response to Each Question. Appendix B Displays a Table of the Interpretations of Codes and 

Themes 

 

4. Discussion 

The purpose of this study was to explore how instructors use student evaluations and student’s 

perceptions of how instructors utilize student feedback. While most studies have included only student 

input on course evaluations, the researchers included both students’ and instructors’ feedback on course 

evaluations. This study discovered that most instructors’ value useful feedback (e.g., likes or dislikes 

with assignments, what worked and did not work throughout the course) from students. By doing so, 

instructors could improve their instruction. They also value qualitative feedback, or written responses, by 

students to further grasp the reasons for the improvement in the instructor’s teaching and overall course. 

Most instructors suggested improvements to the course evaluation by implementing more specific, more 

straightforward questions. Instructors recommended that these questions could relate to the instructor’s 

teaching style, learning outcomes, and elaborating further suggestions in the qualitative feedback section.  

According to the students within this study, they believe that instructors’ willingness to use course 

feedback and whether they benefit from student input on course feedback depends on the instructor. They 

think that some instructors will improve their courses while others will not improve their instruction 

when given feedback. Due to these beliefs, most students feel that they should be the ones to evaluate 

instructors, including the instructor’s peers and supervisors. In regard to the adding or changing of 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

TS
BI

US
E UF NU

F
NR TC R M

I
SR QF SE

UN
F
M
KI SF

M
QC

QF
W
R Y N SQ ST

S LO SQ
F N5 DO

I
US
F AS Y7 N7 PE PS ET SP

Q CS N8

N
u
m
b
er
 o
f 
In
st
ru
ct
o
rs
 

Evaluation Codes 

Instructors' Themes



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

152 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

questions in the course evaluation, some students indicated that implementation of more specific 

questions. Their recommendations were applying issues relating to the interaction and relationship of the 

instructor, preparation, accessibility, teaching style, values, and personality of the instructor. Students 

valued organizational skills (i.e., excitement, clearly speaking, preparedness, and proper skills) in their 

instructor’s teaching (Marks, 2000). Cohen (2005) also found that the participants considered the 

instructor’s explicit instruction of the material and teaching style to be necessary in course evaluation. 

The quality of education and willingness to help are essential factors to impact course evaluations. 

Therefore, these factors are seemingly crucial to various students in evaluating whether instructors have 

fulfilled specific teaching and course factors (Barth, 2008).  

However, both instructors and students seem to have different perspectives on valuable feedback due to 

the gap or inconsistency between instructors’ and students’ representation of valued feedback. Students 

find evaluating the interaction and relationship of instructor, preparation, accessibility, values, and 

personality of the instructor to be necessary. They may want instructors to adhere to the small classroom 

setting to have a positive, close experience with their instructors. Instructors think that more questions 

relating to the instructor’s learning outcomes and further elaborating on suggestions in the qualitative 

feedback section can be more helpful in the student evaluation. Instructors may want to understand 

further how a student is learning and the effectiveness of the course. However, both students and 

instructors suggest inputting the instructor’s teaching style into the evaluation to potentially gain insight 

into the student’s likes and dislikes of the course. These findings are relevant because of previous 

experiences of instructors and students and their likes and dislikes of previous classes.  

Some instructors also suggest a difference in feedback between undergraduate and graduate students. 

They believe that graduate students give better and more feedback compared to undergraduate students. 

This belief brings to the notion that instructors rely on feedback from graduate students but not too heavy 

on undergraduate feedback. Also, undergraduate and graduate students may have different experiences 

because graduate students have more involvement as they have been in school longer compared to 

undergraduate students. Therefore, it could be beneficial to explore mending these gaps of 

inconsistencies with instructors and students to better feedback and the course evaluation process.  

In this study, there were some implications with the different values of student feedback and curriculum 

improvement. An implication was students poorly rating their instructors due to the different values and 

views of the feedback. As noted by Marks (2000) and Barth (2008), instructors who give more 

challenging work tends to have negative ratings or effects because students feel that they will then have 

poor grades. With this interpretation, students could impact their instructors’ evaluations, and instructors 

may alter their teaching to fit the students’ standards to obtain better ratings. Also, with the differences in 

valued feedback and curriculum improvement, teaching and course improvement may not be changed by 

instructors, and students may not learn or obtain learning objectives. Therefore, these implications can 

severely affect students, instructors, and institutions of higher education. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

153 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

5. Conclusion  

This study explored how instructors use student evaluations and the student’s perceptions of how 

instructors use course evaluations. An attempt was made to explore and connect both students’ and 

instructors’ input on course feedback to improve teaching and the development of courses.  

Instructors were asked to recommend ways to improve student input on course evaluations to gain insight 

and to further research. Recommendations included implementing qualitative feedback to each of the 

standardized questions. Another proposal included instructors preparing students to elaborate on 

improvements in the instructor’s teaching style and curriculum. Also, they suggested the option to 

evaluate twice a term to gain more data and feedback from students. An instructor even indicated for the 

evaluations to emulate Amazon ratings where they rate the instructor/course one out of five stars. 

Students could write a simple blurb about their likes and dislikes about the instructor/course. Another 

instructor suggested a type of grievance or governance group that could meet and voice their opinions to 

the dean. The instructor also suggested having students create questions to be implemented in the student 

evaluations. These recommendations could be implemented in further research to improve course 

evaluations, student feedback, and future courses/curriculums. 

 

6. Limitations and Future Research 

Though the internal validity of the study appears to be strong due to the use of the triangulation method, 

it had a limited sample size of both students and instructors. Also, the study has other limitations, such as 

potential investigator bias and small class sizes. Due to the method of triangulation, the researchers had 

to code and theme the results so specific results could have been interpreted differently due to 

investigator bias. Small class sizes were another limiting factor because attending a small class-oriented 

college could affect the student’s input compared to a student attending a larger school.  

Further research is needed to better and further this study’s findings. This could include a larger sample 

size of students and instructors, including both undergraduate and graduate students. Future research 

could also compare the feedback and expectations from both small and large student populations. The 

location of the university is another factor that could be further researched, such as urban versus suburb 

located institutions. These future studies could help further understand the different perceptions of 

students and instructors, the use of student evaluations in various universities/institutions, and other 

factors that influence how instructors use student evaluations.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

154 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

References 

Algozzine, B., Beattie, J., Bray, M., Flowers, C., Gretes, J., Howley, L., … Spooner, F. (2004). Student 

Evaluation of College Teaching. CollegeTeaching, 52(4), 134-141. 

https://doi.org/10.3200/CTCH.52.4.134-141 

Barth, M. M. (2008). Deciphering Student Evaluations of Teaching: A Factor Analysis Approach. 

Journal of Education for Business, 84(1), 40-46S 

Chan, C. K. Y., Luk, L. Y. Y., & Zeng, M. (2014). Teachers’ perceptions of student evaluations of 

teaching. Educational Research and Evaluation, 20(4), 275-289. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2014.932698 

Cohen, E. H. (2005). Student evaluations of course and teacher: Factor analysis and SSA approaches. 

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(2), 123-136. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293042000264235 

Emery, C. R., Kramer, T. R., & Tian, R. G. (2003). Return to academic standards: A critique of student 

evaluations of teaching effectiveness. Quality Assurance in Education: An International 

Perspective, 11(1), 37-46. https://doi.org/10.1108/09684880310462074 

Haladyna, T., & Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). Validation of a research-based student survey of 

instruction in a college of education. Educational Assessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21(3), 

255-276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9065-8 

Macfadyen, L. P., Dawson, S., Prest, S., & Gašević, D. (2016). Whose feedback? A multilevel analysis 

of student completion of end-of-term teaching evaluations. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher 

Education, 41(6), 821-839. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2015.1044421 

Marks, R. B. (2000). Determinants of Student Evaluations of Global Measures of Instructor and Course 

Value. Journal of Marketing Education, 22(2), 108. https://doi.org/10.1177/0273475300222005 

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage 

Publications. 

Richardson, J. T. E. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. 

Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30(4), 387-415. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930500099193 

Saroyan, A., & Amundsen, C. (2001). Evaluating University Teaching: Time to take stock. Assessment 

& Evaluation in Higher Education, 26(4), 341-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602930120063493 

Zhao, J., & Gallant, D. J. (2012). Student Evaluation of Instruction in Higher Education: Exploring 

Issues of Validity and Reliability. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 37(2), 227-235. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2010.523819 

 

 

 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

155 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Appendixes 

Appendix A: Code Interpretation of Students’ Themes 

Student’s Themes Codes Interpretation  

Overall experience P Instructor’s performance  

 WT Worth Taking  

 IC To make improvements of the course  

 CE Course experience 

 SE Student experience  

Varied instructors DOICF Depends on instructor for instructor course feedback  

 MSQ More specific questions 

 NCQ No change in questions 

 DOISI Depends on instructor for student input on course 

feedback 

 SEI Students evaluate instructors  

 P-S Peers and Supervisors evaluate instructors  

Student evaluation  PCEI Preparation of the instructor course evaluation 

improvements  

 ISICEI Interaction with students and instructor course 

evaluation improvements 

 TSCEI Teaching style/values course evaluation improvements

 PCEI Personality course evaluation improvements  

 ACEI Accessibility course evaluation improvements  

 MQCEI More questions course evaluation improvements  

 NI No improvement  

Recommendations OE Online evaluations 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

156 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 PE Paper evaluations  

 IE Indifferent evaluations  

 ACE After class is over evaluations  

 AE Anonymous evaluations  

 

Appendix B: Code Interpretation of Instructors’ Themes 

Instructor’s Theme  Code Interpretation 

Instructor’s Experience TSBI Teaching/syllabi/book/curriculum improvements  

 USE Understanding student’s experiences 

 UF Useful feedback (what worked)  

 NUF Not useful feedback (what didn’t worked)  

Reactions NR No reaction 

 TC Takes into consideration (grain of salt) 

 R Reacted (happy or disappointed) 

 MI Making improvements  

 SR Looks at specific responses (more critical/negative) 

 QF Qualitative feedback/written responses  

Expectations SE Student expectations 

 UNF Unhelpful feedback 

 MKI Making improvements 

 SF Student feedback (Positive/Negative) 

 MQC More evaluation throughout the course  

 QFWR Qualitative feedback/written responses  

Evaluation Form Changes  Y Yes 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 1, No. 1, 2020 

157 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 N No 

 SQ Specific/simpler questions (teaching techniques/strategies)  

 STS Specific to teaching style  

 LO Understanding the learning outcomes  

 SQF Specific in the qualitative form (was it useful?) 

 N5 No  

Student Input Benefits DOI Depends on the instructor  

 USF Useful feedback to improve teaching/courses 

 AS Adjustments for the students  

Student Evaluation  Y7 Yes  

 N7 No  

 PR Peer evaluations  

Recommendations PS Prepping students 

 ET Evaluating twice a term  

 SPQ Specific questions 

 CS Creative suggestions (Amazon ratings/qualitative data with 

quantitative data)  

 N8 No 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


