What routine student evaluations showed about teacher development

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We have narrowed the briefing to the accessible abstract and selected publisher passages, and removed detailed numerical claims we could not check in the complete paper. Reported usefulness is distinguished from demonstrated teaching improvement.

What the accessible source reports

Lisa Levelt, Nouchka T. Tick and Maarten J. van der Smagt studied a routine evaluation process developed for starting Psychology teachers. The 17-RSET combined ratings and open questions, administered twice per year, with discussion intended to support interpretation.

The quantitative analysis used 5,050 student evaluations of 42 teachers from 2015 to 2022. Interviews involved 16 teachers. Aggregated subscale ratings showed some support for reliability and structural validity. There was little significant development in scores overall, although teachers’ trajectories differed. Interviewees generally found the procedure useful, with variation in their experiences.

The findings do not show that comments or discussions caused improvement. The accessible methods describe a specific teaching context and a convenience interview sample; full results and limitations could not be reviewed. We omit detailed item changes, interview theme counts and numerical usefulness ratings rather than imply those have been independently verified.

A useful distinction for teaching teams

Our suggested question is what each part of an evaluation helps you understand. A rating records a judgement; a comment may describe the experience behind it; a conversation may identify questions or possible responses. Neither the presence of comments nor a discussion guarantees that the interpretation is correct.

When comparing results over time, record who responded and whether the teaching context changed. Avoid treating a flat average as proof that nothing changed, or a rising score as proof that the teacher improved. Agree what additional evidence would be useful before making a consequential decision.

If you revise the process, discuss its intended purpose with students and staff. The separate briefings on evaluation redesign and teachers’ use of feedback provide other accounts with explicit evidence limits. These are our practical suggestions, not a validated procedure for every institution.

Reference

Levelt, L., Tick, N. T. and van der Smagt, M. J. (2026). Beyond numbers: the merit of routine student evaluation for starting academic teacher development. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 50(2), 381–399. Published online 19 December 2025; issue year 2026. Publisher article; Utrecht University record.