Review links perceived procedural fairness with acceptance of teaching evaluations

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We checked the publisher’s abstract. The complete methods, included-study assessment and synthesis were unavailable.

What the review reports

Corrine Keke Chen reviews 35 empirical studies published during 2015–2025 on faculty perceptions of fairness in student evaluation of teaching. The abstract describes a PRISMA-guided process and five fairness frames: distributive, procedural, interactional, epistemic and affective.

Among studies reporting legitimacy outcomes, procedural justice had the most consistent positive association with trust and acceptance. Inequities, harmful interactions and concerns about validity weakened confidence. Employment insecurity, identity, discipline and governance context affected these relationships.

This concerns faculty perceptions and associated outcomes, not a causal test showing that a particular procedure creates trust. The accessible abstract does not establish equivalent effects on student trust, learning or satisfaction. It also does not validate a commercial analysis method.

Questions for local evaluation policy

Our suggestion is to publish the purpose and limits of an evaluation before collecting responses. Explain how results inform decisions, which other evidence is considered, and how staff can query an interpretation.

When reviewing a policy, ask whether different groups experience the same process differently. Distinguish disagreements about scores from concerns about procedures or treatment. The governance checklist offers questions for documenting evidence use; these are proposals to examine locally, not effects measured in the review.

Reference

Chen, C. K. (2026). Justice and the legitimacy of student evaluation systems in higher education: a systematic review. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education. Paper, online 22 May 2026.