What response rates are needed to make reliable inferences from student evaluations of teaching?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper addresses the determination of statistically desirable response rates in students’ surveys, with emphasis on assessing the effect of underlying variability in the student evaluation of teaching (SET). We discuss factors affecting the determination of adequate response rates and highlight challenges caused by non-response and lack of randomization. Estimates of underlying variability were obtained for a period of 4 years, from online evaluations at the University of British Columbia (UBC). Simulations were used to examine the effect of underlying variability on desirable response rates. The UBC response rates were compared to those reported in the literature. Results indicate that small differences in underlying variability may not impact desired rates. We present acceptable response rates for a range of variability scenarios, class sizes, confidence level, and margin of error. The stability of estimates observed at UBC, over a 4-year period, indicates that valid model-based inferences of SET could be made.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.060 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it