Student ratings and achievement: a modest link

Updated Sep 10, 2026

Before using a teaching rating to judge learning, ask what evidence connects them. Merve Sahin Kursad, Munevver Ilgun Dibek and Tolga Erdogan examine that relationship in a meta-analysis in Studies in Educational Evaluation. For teams working with student voice, the distinction matters when deciding what a survey result can support.

What relationship does the review examine?

The review synthesises correlations between student evaluations of teaching and academic achievement. For UK survey teams, our practical question is how to report perceptions of teaching without treating them as a direct assessment of learning.

What the study reports

The pooled relationship was modest and positive. Across 57 studies contributing 241 correlations, the reported association was r = .30 and statistically significant.

The method accounted for related results. The multilevel analysis allowed for statistical dependence among effects. The authors also report robust variance estimation and sensitivity checks.

The evidence is correlational. It does not establish that increasing ratings improves achievement.

How UK teams could use this distinction

The following are our proposed review steps, not interventions tested by this paper. Start with the decision your report needs to support. If the question concerns students' experience of teaching, retain their accounts in their own terms. If it concerns learning, specify what additional evidence would address that question. This gives the report a clear boundary for its conclusions.

When reviewing comments alongside ratings, separate the topic from the judgement expressed. For example, examine comments about explanation, assessment instructions and access to help separately. These are suggested categories, not findings from the meta-analysis. Our student feedback analysis glossary can help teams agree definitions before coding, so colleagues know what each theme includes.

Before comparing courses, document question wording, collection timing, respondent coverage and any exclusions. Keep ambiguous comments available for authorised human review. The student comment analysis governance checklist provides prompts for recording coverage, access and supporting evidence. That makes the basis of a comparison easier to scrutinise.

End the review with an owner and a question to investigate. A concern about unclear assessment instructions, for example, could prompt a discussion with students about which instructions need clarification. Record the response and how it will be evaluated. Our briefing on York's module evaluation reporting arrangements offers a separate example of specifying who receives results and when, helping teams plan follow-up.

FAQ

Q: How should we report teaching ratings alongside comments?

A: We suggest distinct sections for ratings, comment themes and evidence about learning. State what each section contributes, then explain the proposed action and its evidential limits. Avoid combining them into an unexplained overall teaching score.

Q: Does the pooled correlation validate our NSS or module survey?

A: This briefing cannot establish that. Local validation would need to examine the specific questions, respondents and intended use.

Q: What does this mean for listening to students?

A: Our recommendation is to ask students what needs attention and involve them in interpreting the response. Comment themes can organise that discussion; they cannot establish what caused a learning outcome. Keep a record of what students raised, what the team decided and what remains unresolved.

References

[Paper Source]: Merve Sahin Kursad, Munevver Ilgun Dibek and Tolga Erdogan "A multilevel meta-analysis of student evaluations of teaching and academic achievement"

DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2026.101644