The distribution of insufficient effort responses according to the methods of classifying and interpreting students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness

Purpose This study explores the distribution of insufficient effort responders according to methods of classifying students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in higher education. Five different methods were found in the literature to classify students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in higher education. Design/methodology/approach Quantitative research methodology was used to achieve the goals of this study. Data from a major public university was used through 20 five-point items that are designed to measure students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness. The dataset that consisted of 26,679 surveys was analyzed. Detecting insufficient efforts responding was based on item response theory procedures. Findings The results show that insufficient effort responders are distributed differently to students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in higher education levels according to different methods of classifying these levels. The results of this study suggest using a percentage of students’ agreement of 4 or 5 for each item to classify SET levels and deleting IERs before interpreting SET results. Research limitations/implications According to the results of this study, it is recommended to research the relationships between IER and SET scores and students’ motivation to participate in evaluating teaching effectiveness. Practical implications According to the results of this study, it is recommended to:1– Exclude the IERs from the dataset before generating SET reports. 2– Use the percentage of 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree) satisfactions of SET items to classify and interpret SET results. Originality/value Reviewing the literature shows the absence of studies that explore the distribution of insufficient effort responders according to methods of classifying students’ evaluation of teaching effectiveness in higher education. The results suggest using a percentage of students’ agreement of 4 or 5 for each item to classify SET levels and deleting IERs before interpreting SET results.