A Narrative Review of Student Evaluations of Teaching in Decolonial Praxis: Implications for Occupational Therapy Higher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student evaluations of teaching (SETs) are the primary source for evaluating teaching effectiveness and are used for deciding tenure and promotion. However, as efforts to engage in a decolonial critique of higher education amplify, the use of SETs in teaching and learning requires scrutiny. A narrative review was used to address the research question of SET biases in decolonial praxis and what insights may be useful for OT decolonial praxis. We identify and describe two content areas: (a) SET biases and (b) recommendations for alternatives promoting OT decolonial praxis. A total of 92 articles were sourced from five databases. Of the 92 articles, 44 met the inclusion criteria: peer-reviewed across disciplines, written in English, research conducted in the US, and published between 2011–2021. SETs scores are affected by factors beyond the influence of the instructor. Twenty-nine factors contributing to SETs biases were grouped into three main categories: SETs biases against instructors, other biases from students, and SETs biases in processes. Alternative methodological approaches are highlighted that may mitigate the identified biases for application in decolonial praxis in OT higher education.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.014 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".