Abstracts
Résumé
Dans cet article conclusif, les transformations actuelles de l’EEE sont interrogées selon trois axes. Les limites et les dérives observées dans ce domaine conduisent tout d’abord à remettre en question une approche de la qualité de l’enseignement normative et généralisante dont les effets déformants et les dangers ne sont pas à minimiser. Est soulignée ensuite l’importance à accorder aux situations particulières et la nécessité d’une approche écologique de l’EEE, à savoir prenant en compte les caractéristiques et dynamiques propres à chaque milieu ainsi que les emboîtements de contextes dans lesquels elle se trouve prise. Enfin, dans une logique pédagogique, il est considéré comment l’EEE, s’inscrivant dans un ensemble plus large, constitue un vecteur d’amélioration de l’enseignement non seulement en le stimulant mais en participant à ses transformations.
Mots-clés :
- évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiants,
- dérives,
- contexte,
- transformation,
- enseignement supérieur
Abstract
In this final article, the current changes taking place in student evaluation of teaching are considered, focussing on three points. To begin with, the limits and abuse that have been observed in this field make the authors question the generalizing and normative approach to quality in education: the distorting effect and dangers of this approach should not be underestimated. Then the authors underline how important it is to consider specific situations, and to apply an ecological approach to SET. This entails taking into account the characteristics and dynamics which are specific to each environment, as well as the way this approach is affected by the manner in which it fits into the different contexts. Finally, the issue is considered from a pedagogical point of view. student evaluation of teaching is part of a broader framework, and it can thus be a vector for improving teaching by stimulating it and also contribute to transforming it.
Keywords:
- students’ evaluation of teaching,
- drifts,
- contexts,
- transformations,
- higher education
Resumo
Neste artigo conclusivo, as transformações atuais da avaliação do ensino pelos estudantes são questionados segundo três eixos. Os limites e as derivas observados neste domínio levam, desde logo, a colocar em questão uma abordagem da qualidade do ensino normativa e generalizante cujos efeitos deformantes e perigos não devem ser minimizados. é sublinhada de seguida a importância das situações específicas e a necessidade de uma abordagem ecológica da avaliação do ensino pelos estudantes, nomeadamente tendo em conta as características e dinâmicas próprias a cada meio, bem como a forma como esta abordagem é afetada pela maneira através da qual se adequa aos diferentes contextos. Por fim, numa lógica pedagógica, é considerado o modo como a avaliação do ensino pelos estudantes, inserindo-se numa perspetiva mais abrangente, constitui um vetor de melhoria do ensino não apenas estimulando-o, mas também participando nas suas transformações.
Palavras chaves:
- avaliação do ensino pelos estudantes,
- derivas,
- contextos,
- transformação,
- ensino superior
Download the article in PDF to read it.
Download
Appendices
Références
- Abrami, P. C., Theall, M., & Mets, L. A. (2001). Introduction to the student ratings debate. In M. theall, P. Abrami, & L. A. Mets (Eds.), The student ratings debate: Are they valid? How can we best use them? (vol. 109, pp. 1-6). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: an update on what we know, do not know, and need to do. In J. Perry & J. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 446-456). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Anderson, H. M., Cain, J., & Bird, E. (2005). Online student course evaluations: review of literature and a pilot study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69, 1-5. doi:10.5688/aj690105
- Astin, A. (1993). What matters in college: Four critical years revisited. san Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Austin, A. E. (1990). Faculty cultures, faculty values. New directions for institutional research, 1990, 61-74. doi: 10.1002/ir.37019906807
- Avery, R. J., Keith Bryant, W., Mathios, A., Kang, H., & Bell, D. (2006). Electronic course evaluations: Does an online delivery system influence student evaluations? Journal of Economic Education, 37 (1), 21-37.
- Banaji, M. R., & Prentice, D. (1994). The self in social contexts. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 297-332. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.45.020194.001501
- Becher, T. (1981). Towards a definition of disciplinary cultures. studies in Higher Education, 6 (2), 109-122. doi:10.1080/03075078112331379362
- Becher, T. (1987). The disciplinary shaping of the profession. In B.R. Clark (Ed.), The academic profession: National, disciplinary, and institutional settings (pp. 271-304). Berkeley, Ca: University of California Press.
- Boice, R. (1992). The new faculty member: supporting and fostering professional development. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching.
- Brady, P. (1994). How likeability and effectiveness ratings of college professors by their students are affected by course demands and professors’ attitudes. Psychological Reports, 74 (3), 197-204. doi:10.2466/pr0.1994.74.3.907
- Brookfield, S. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. san Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Brown, R. (2007). The information fallacy. oxford: Higher Education Policy Institute. Retrieved from: www.hepi.ac.uk/484-1291/the-Information-Fallacy.html
- Brown, R., Carpenter, C., Collins, R., & Winkwist-Noble, L. (2009). Recent developments in information about programme quality. Quality in Higher Education, 13 (2), 173–186.
- Campbell, J. D. (1990). Self-esteem and clarity of the self-concept. Journal of Personality & social Psychology, 59 (3), 538-549. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.3.538
- Cranton, P. (2001). Interpretative and critical evaluation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 87- 97. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.59.3.538
- Cheng, J., & Marsh, H.-W. (2010). UK national student survey: are differences between universities and courses reliable and meaningful. Oxford Review of Education, 36 (6), 693-712.
- Cross, K. P., & Steadman, M. H. (1996). Classroom research: Implementing the scholarship of teaching. san Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Detroz, P. (2009). L’évaluation des enseignements par les étudiants: état de la recherche et perspectives. Revue française de pédagogie, 165, 117-135.
- Feldman, K. A. (1976). Grade and college students evaluations of their courses and teachers. Research in Higher Education, 4, 69-111. doi:10.1007/BF00991462
- Feldman, K. A. (2007). Identifying exemplary teachers and teaching: evidence from student ratings. In J. Perry & J. smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 93-129). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Feldman, K. A., & Paulsen, M. B. (1999) Faculty motivation: the role of a supportive teaching culture. In M. theall (Ed.), Motivations from within: approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel . New Direction for Teaching and Learning, 78, 71-78. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Figari, G. (2001). Us et abus de la notion de référentiel. In G. Figari & M. Achouche (Eds.), L’activité évaluative réinterrogée; regards scolaires et socioprofessionnels (pp. 310-314). Bruxelles: De Boeck.
- Filliatreau, G., & Vidal, P. (2010). Le projet de classement europeen des etablissements d’enseignement superieur uMultirank. Revue internationale d’éducation-sèvres, 54, 137-145. doi:10.4000/ries.996
- Gibbs, G. (2000). Are the pedagogies of the disciplines really different? In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving student learning through the disciplines (pp. 41- 51). Oxford: Oxford Centre for staff and Learning Development.
- Gibbs, G. (2008). Designing teaching award schemes. York: Higher Education academy.
- Gibbs, G. (2010). The assessment of group work: lessons from the literature. Oxford: assessment standards knowledge exchange. Retrieved from: www.brookes.ac.uk/aske/documents/Brookes%20groupwork%20Gibbs%20Dec%2009.pdf
- Gibbs, G., Knapper, C., & Picinnin, S. (2008). Disciplinary and contextually appropriate approaches to leadership of teaching in research-intensive academic departments in higher education. Higher Education Quarterly, 62 (4), 416–436. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00402.x
- Glassick, C. E., Huber, M. T., & Maeroff, G. I. (1997). Scholarship assessed: evaluation of the professoriate. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Hadji, C., Bargel, T., & Masjuan, J. (2005). Étudier dans une université qui change. Le regard des étudiants de trois régions d’Europe. Grenoble: PUG.
- Hand, T., & Trembath, K. (1998). Enhancing and customising the analysis of the course experience questionnaire. Canberra: Department of Employment, training and Youth affairs.
- Hoyt, D. P., & Lee, E. (2002). IDEA Technical Report No. 12: Basic data for the revised IDEA system. Manhattan, Ks: the IDEA Center.
- Huber, M. T., & Morreale, S. (2002). Disciplinary styles in the scholarship of teaching and learning: exploring common ground. Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education and the Carnegie Foundation for the advancement of teaching.
- Hutchings, P., & shulman, L. S. (1999). The scholarship of teaching: new elaborations, new developments. Change, 31 (5), 11-15. doi:10.1080/00091389909604218
- Josephs, R. A., Larrick, R. P., Steele, C. M., & Nisbett, R. E. (1992). Protecting the self from negative consequence of risky decisions. Journal of Personality & social Psychology, 62, 26-37. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.62.1.26
- Johnson, T. (1999). Course Experience Questionnaire 1998. Parkville, Victoria: Graduate Carrers Concil of Australia.
- Kolitch, E., & Dean, A. V. (1999). Student ratings of instruction in the usa: Hidden assumptions and missing conceptions about “good” teaching. studies in Higher Education, 24 (1), 27-42. doi:10.1080/03075079912331380128
- Kreber, C., & Cranton, P. (2000). Exploring the scholarship of teaching. Journal of Higher Education, 71 (4), 476-495. doi:10.2307/2649149
- Leclerc, B. (2012). La valeur du savoir. In J.-E. Charlier, S. Croche, & B. Leclerc (Eds.), Contrôler la qualité dans l’enseignement supérieur (pp. 135-168). Louvain-la-Neuve: Harmattan-Academia.
- Light, D. (1974). The structure of academic professions. sociology of Education, 47( 1), 2-28. doi:10.2307/2112165
- Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly-Hills, Ca: Sage.
- Machell, D. F. (1989). A discourse on professional melancholia. Community Review, 9 (1-2), 41-50.
- Marsh, H.-W. (1982). SEEQ: A reliable, valid, and useful instrument for collecting students’ evaluations of university teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 77-95. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1982.tb02505.x
- Marsh, H.-W. (1983). Multidimensional ratings of teaching effectiveness by students from different academic settings and their relation to student/course/instructor characteristics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75( 1), 150-166. doi:10.1037//0022-0663.75.1.150
- Marsh, H.-W. (2007). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: dimensionality, reliability, validity, potential biases and usefulness. In J. Perry & J. smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 319-384). Dordrecht: springer.
- Marsh, H.-W., & Dunkin, M. J. (1992). Students’ evaluations of university teaching: a multidimensional perspective. Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, 8, 143-233.
- McKeachie, W. J. (1979). Student rating of faculty: a reprise. Academe, 65, 384-397.
- McKeachie, W. J. (2007). Good teaching makes the difference and we know what it is. In J. Perry & J. smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 457-474). Dordrecht: Springer.
- McMurtry, J. (1991). Education and the market model. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 25, 209-217.
- Menges, R. J., Weimer, M. (1996). Teaching on solid ground: Using scholarship to improve practice. san Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Norris, J., & Conn, C. (2005). Investigating strategies for increasing student response rates to online-delivered course evaluations. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 6 (1), 13-29. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9752.1991.tb00642.x
- Nulty, D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys: what can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33 (3), 301-314. doi:10.1080/02602930701293231
- Paivandi, S. (2010). L’acte d’apprendre à l’université: perspective sociologique. Document inedit. texte d’HDr. universite Paris 8, Paris.
- Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, Ca: sage.
- Pelham, B. W., & swann, W. B. Jr. (1989). From self-conceptions to self-worth: the sources and structure of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 57, 672-680.
- Perry, J., & Smart, J. (2007). The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective. Dordrecht: springer.
- Ramsden, P. A. (1991). Performance indicator of teaching quality in higher education: the course experience questionnaire. studies in Higher Education, 16 (2), 129-150. doi:10.1080/03075079112331382944
- Ramsden, P. (1998). Managing the effective university. Higher Education Research and Development, 17 (3), 347-370. doi:10.1080/0729436980170307
- Ramsden, P., & Entwistle, N. J. (1981). Effects of academics departments on students’ approaches to studying. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 368-383. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.1981.tb02493.x
- Rice, R. E. (2007). From athens and Berlin to La: faculty scholarship and the changing academy. In J. Perry & J. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 11-21). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Ritzer, G. (1996). McUniversity in the postmodern consumer society. Quality in Higher Education, 2 (3), 185-199. doi:10.1080/1353832960020302
- Rodger, S., Murray, H. G., & Cummings, A. L. (2007). Effects of teacher clarity and student anxiety on student outcomes. Teaching in Higher Education, 12, 91-104. doi:10.1080/13562510601102255
- Romainville, M. (2004). L’apprentissage chez les étudiants. In E. Annoot & M.-F. Fave-Bonnet (Eds.), Pratiques pédagogiques dans l’enseignement supérieur: enseigner, apprendre, évaluer. Paris: L’Harmattan.
- Romainville, M., & Coggi, C. (Eds.) (2009). L’évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiants. Approches critiques et pratiques innovantes. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
- Rowley, J. (1996). Measuring quality in higher education. Quality in Higher Education, 2 (3), 237-255. doi:10.1080/1353832960020306
- Schmitz, C. C. (1993). Assessing the validity of higher education indicators. Journal of Higher Education, 64 (5), 503–521. doi:10.2307/2959990
- Schon, D. A. (1983). Le praticien réflexif: À la recherche du savoir caché dans l’agir professionnel. Montreal, QC: Éditions logiques.
- Scriven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. tyler, R. M. Gagne, & M.
- Scriven (Eds.), Perspectives of curriculum evaluation (pp. 39-83). Chicago, IL: Rand Mcnally.
- Shulman, L.-S. (1998). Course anatomy: the dissection and analysis of knowledge through teaching. In P. Hutchings. (Ed.), The course portfolio: How faculty can examine their teaching to advance practice and student learning (pp. 5-12). Washington, DC: American Association for Higher Education.
- Smith, R. (2001). Formative evaluation and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In C. Knapper & P. Cranton (Eds.), Fresh Approaches to the Evaluation of Teaching, New directions for teaching and learning, (vol. 88, pp. 51- 62). San Francisco, Ca: Jossey-Bass.
- Sproule, R., & Valsan, C. (2009). The student evaluation of teaching: its failure as a research program, and as an administrative guide . The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC Journal, 11 (25), 125-150.
- Stake, R. E. (1975). To evaluate an art program. In R. E. Stake (Ed.), Evaluating the arts in education: A responsive approach (pp. 13-31) . Columbus, OH: Merrill.
- Theall, M., & Franklin, J. (2001). Using technology to facilitate evaluation. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 88, 41-50.
- Toma, J. D. (1997). Alternative inquiry paradigms, faculty cultures, and the definition of academic lives. Journal of Higher Education, 68 (6), 679-705. doi:10.2307/2959968
- Umbach, P. D. (2007). Faculty cultures and college teaching. In J. Perry & J. smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 263-310). Dordrecht: Springer.
- Vogel, L. (2012). Discours de clôture de la Conférence des Présidents d’Université. retrieved from: http://www.cpu.fr/uploads/tx_publications/120210_discoursconclusion-final__2_.pdf
- Younès, N. (2005). Démarche d’implantation d’un logiciel d’évaluation de l’enseignement fonctionnant sur intranet/Internet. Revue internationale des technologies en pédagogie universitaire, 5 (2). Retrieved from: http://www.ritpu.org/spip.php?article68
- Younès, N. (2006). L'effet évaluation de l'enseignement supérieur par les étudiants (thèse de doctorat non publiée). Université Pierre Mendes France, Grenoble.
- Younès, N. (2007). À quelles conditions l’évaluation formative de l’enseignement par les étudiants est-elle possible en France? Revue française de pédagogie, 161, 25-40.
- Younès, n. (2009). L’évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiants comme seuil de changement. In M. Romainville & C. Coggi (Eds.), L’évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiants dans le supérieur: approches critiques et pratiques innovantes (pp. 191-210). Bruxelles: De Boeck.
- Younès, N., Rege Colet, N., Detroz, P., & Sylvestre, E. (2012). L’évaluation de l’enseignement par les étudiants, une dynamique paradoxale. In M. Romainville, M. Vantourout, & R. Goasdoue (Eds.), évaluation et enseignement supérieur. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
- Zabaleta, F. (2007). The use and misuse of student evaluation of teaching. Teaching in Higher Education, 12 (1), 55-76. doi:10.1080/13562510601102131